Smt Kusum Yadav v. Counsel for
Case Details
Heard Shri Bhaiya Lal Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shashi Kant Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State - respondents. The instant writ petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to refund the value of stamps amounting to Rs. 80,000/- along with interest. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased non- judicial stamp papers amounting to Rs. 80,000/- on 19.05.2017 for executing sale deed, but the sale deed could not be executed. The petitioner returned the said stamp, to which an order was passed by the Chief Treasury Officer on 07.08.2018 that the original stamp has been returned for the value of Rs. 80,000/-. Accordingly, an order was passed on 29.11.2018 directing refund of the amount of Rs. 72,000/- after deducting 10% of the amount as prescribed under the Act, but after passing of the order dated 29.11.2018, the amount was not refunded. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation for refund of the amount, but no action has been taken thereon. Hence, the instant writ petition. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the amount had already been returned way back on 13.12.2018 to one Smt. Kusum and after institution of the present writ petition, on inquiry in the Office, it was found that the amount was wrongly credited to some other Kusum inadvertently, but immediately thereafter, action was taken and the amount has been 2 WRIC No. 6612 of 2025 credited in the account of the petitioner on 08.04.2025. Therefore, there was no wilful or deliberate delay in the matter on behalf of the State and there is no question of parting any interest. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. It is not in dispute that the stamp, which was purchased was duly returned and the order was passed directing refund of the amount after deducting 10% as prescribed under section 53 of the Stamp Act. The amount of Rs. 72 ,000/- was debited from the account of Government treasury, but due to inadvertent mistake, the same was credited in some other having same name as that of the petitioner, i.e., Kusum. The respondent, on coming to know about the said inadvertent mistake, rectified the same and the amount has been credited in the account of the petitioner on 08.04.2025. The State has parted its money and therefore, there is no wilful or deliberate delay on the part of the respondents in making payment. The record further shows that the order was passed in the year 2018 and the amount was parted by the State in that year itself. The petitioner kept mum and only in the year 2024, moved an application for refund of the amount (a copy of the said application is annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition). In paragraph nos. 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12 of the counter affidavit following averments have been made:- "8. That thereafter neither the applicant was contacted to the concerned Officer regarding the said refund amount nor submitted any application in this regard.
9. That for the first time, the petitioner has submitted an application in the month of January 2023 for refund of amount i.e. Rs. 72,000/-, then immediately the matter was enquired and found that the said amount had wrongly been transmitted in the account of one Smt. Kusum Singh on 13.12.2018 through UTR No. RBI3481856958634, thereafter the said amount has been recovered and refunded by Smt. Kusum Singh through Challan No. CS40130 dated 28.03.2025 and information of the same has been communicated to the deponent by means of letter dated 28.03.2025.
10. That after recovery of the amount of Rs. 72000 from Smt. Kusum Singh, the 3 WRIC No. 6612 of 2025 deponent immediately proceeded with the matter and after completing the necessary documentary formalities, the amount to the tune of Rs. 72000/- has been credited in the account of the applicant on 08.04.2025 through concerned treasury.
11. That in the light of the facts stated above, it is respectfully submitted that since for payment of admissible refund amount of Rs. 72000/- (after due deduction of 10%), the payment order has already been prepared on 29.11.2018 but due to in inadvertent mistake, the said amount has wrongly been transmitted in the account of Smt. Kusum Singh on 13.12.2018and after lapse of 4 years, the petitioner submitted an application in the month of January 2023 for the first time, then immediately matter was enquired and after initiating the proceeding as mentioned above, the amount of Rs. 72000/- has been refunded/credited in the account of the petitioner on 08.04.2025. In these circumstances, there is no wilful or deliberate delay in the matter on the part of the answering respondent, whereas, after having the knowledge of the said facts after submission of the application by the petitioner in the month of January, 2024, the matter was immediately enquired and amount has been refunded to the petitioner.
12. That it is humbly submitted that the petitioner has informed about the non- payment of Rs. 72000/- in the month of January 2025 along with the Bank Statement, which was lapse of four years, if petitioner would have informed about the same at that relevant time, then same have been resolved by that time." The petitioner, in her wisdom, chose not to file any rejoinder affidavit in the writ petition rebutting the said facts as mentioned herein-above. Once the fact that the amount was parted by the State in the year 2018 and the petitioner kept mum for almost more than seven years, no adverse view can be taken against the State authorities. The petitioner has also not denied about the payment of Rs. 72,000/- on 08.04.2025. Once the said fact has not been disputed, there is no question of passing any order for interest. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. September 11, 2025 Amit Mishra (Piyush Agrawal,J.) AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Heard Shri Bhaiya Lal Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shashi Kant Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State - respondents. The instant writ petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to refund the value of stamps amounting to Rs. 80,000/- along with interest. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased non- judicial stamp papers amounting to Rs. 80,000/- on 19.05.2017 for executing sale deed, but the sale deed could not be executed. The petitioner returned the said stamp, to which an order was passed by the Chief Treasury Officer on 07.08.2018 that the original stamp has been returned for the value of Rs. 80,000/-. Accordingly, an order was passed on 29.11.2018 directing refund of the amount of Rs. 72,000/- after deducting 10% of the amount as prescribed under the Act, but after passing of the order dated 29.11.2018, the amount was not refunded. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation for refund of the amount, but no action has been taken thereon. Hence, the instant writ petition. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the amount had already been returned way back on 13.12.2018 to one Smt. Kusum and after institution of the present writ petition, on inquiry in the Office, it was found that the amount was wrongly credited to some other Kusum inadvertently, but immediately thereafter, action was taken and the amount has been 2 WRIC No. 6612 of 2025 credited in the account of the petitioner on 08.04.2025. Therefore, there was no wilful or deliberate delay in the matter on behalf of the State and there is no question of parting any interest. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record. It is not in dispute that the stamp, which was purchased was duly returned and the order was passed directing refund of the amount after deducting 10% as prescribed under section 53 of the Stamp Act. The amount of Rs. 72 ,000/- was debited from the account of Government treasury, but due to inadvertent mistake, the same was credited in some other having same name as that of the petitioner, i.e., Kusum. The respondent, on coming to know about the said inadvertent mistake, rectified the same and the amount has been credited in the account of the petitioner on 08.04.2025. The State has parted its money and therefore, there is no wilful or deliberate delay on the part of the respondents in making payment. The record further shows that the order was passed in the year 2018 and the amount was parted by the State in that year itself. The petitioner kept mum and only in the year 2024, moved an application for refund of the amount (a copy of the said application is annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition). In paragraph nos. 8, 9, 10, 11 & 12 of the counter affidavit following averments have been made:- "8. That thereafter neither the applicant was contacted to the concerned Officer regarding the said refund amount nor submitted any application in this regard.
9. That for the first time, the petitioner has submitted an application in the month of January 2023 for refund of amount i.e. Rs. 72,000/-, then immediately the matter was enquired and found that the said amount had wrongly been transmitted in the account of one Smt. Kusum Singh on 13.12.2018 through UTR No. RBI3481856958634, thereafter the said amount has been recovered and refunded by Smt. Kusum Singh through Challan No. CS40130 dated 28.03.2025 and information of the same has been communicated to the deponent by means of letter dated 28.03.2025.
10. That after recovery of the amount of Rs. 72000 from Smt. Kusum Singh, the 3 WRIC No. 6612 of 2025 deponent immediately proceeded with the matter and after completing the necessary documentary formalities, the amount to the tune of Rs. 72000/- has been credited in the account of the applicant on 08.04.2025 through concerned treasury.
11. That in the light of the facts stated above, it is respectfully submitted that since for payment of admissible refund amount of Rs. 72000/- (after due deduction of 10%), the payment order has already been prepared on 29.11.2018 but due to in inadvertent mistake, the said amount has wrongly been transmitted in the account of Smt. Kusum Singh on 13.12.2018and after lapse of 4 years, the petitioner submitted an application in the month of January 2023 for the first time, then immediately matter was enquired and after initiating the proceeding as mentioned above, the amount of Rs. 72000/- has been refunded/credited in the account of the petitioner on 08.04.2025. In these circumstances, there is no wilful or deliberate delay in the matter on the part of the answering respondent, whereas, after having the knowledge of the said facts after submission of the application by the petitioner in the month of January, 2024, the matter was immediately enquired and amount has been refunded to the petitioner.
12. That it is humbly submitted that the petitioner has informed about the non- payment of Rs. 72000/- in the month of January 2025 along with the Bank Statement, which was lapse of four years, if petitioner would have informed about the same at that relevant time, then same have been resolved by that time." The petitioner, in her wisdom, chose not to file any rejoinder affidavit in the writ petition rebutting the said facts as mentioned herein-above. Once the fact that the amount was parted by the State in the year 2018 and the petitioner kept mum for almost more than seven years, no adverse view can be taken against the State authorities. The petitioner has also not denied about the payment of Rs. 72,000/- on 08.04.2025. Once the said fact has not been disputed, there is no question of passing any order for interest. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. September 11, 2025 Amit Mishra (Piyush Agrawal,J.) AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad