Allowed

Surendra Prasad Jaiswal v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC4 Mar 2011CWJC/18649/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Patna, allowed a refund claim held time-barred under Stamp Rules. It set aside the impugned order, finding that an application submitted to a Sub-Registrar within the statutory period was valid. The Court held the Sub-Registrar could not feign ignorance of legal duties and ordered the District Magistrate to refund the amount.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 01.09.2009 setting aside the petitioner's claim and the application to allow refund within two months.

Surendra Prasad Jaiswal Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Patna HC (2011) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18649 of 2009

¶2

SURENDRA PRASAD JAISWAL S/O LATE JANKI CHOUDHARY R/O VILL & P.O. ABHIYA BAZAR, P.S.GOPALPUR, ANCHAL GOPALPUR,SUB DIVISION-NAUGACHIA, DISTT-BHAGALPUR

¶3

Versus

¶4

THE STATE OF BIHAR

¶5

THE COLLECTOR BHAGALPUR

¶6

THE COMMISSIONER BHAGALPUR

¶7

THE TREASURY OFFICER BHAGALPUR

¶8

THE DISTRICT SUB REGISTRAR BHAGALPUR

¶9

For the Petitioner:Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Advocate For the State:Mr. G.P.-VIII & Mr. J.C to G.P-VIII

¶10

¶11

04.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶12

learned counsel for the State.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he purchased Non-Judicial Stamp on 4.6.2008. The purpose not having been fulfilled, he applied for refund of the revenue on 26.8.2008. That has been refused by order dated 1.9.2009 on the premise that the application was made to the District Magistrate on 16.7.2009 much beyond the period of six months as provided for under Rules 49 and 50 of Bihar Stamp (Refund of Payment for Non-Judicial Stamp) Rules, 2008.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application for refund was made on 26.8.2008 reiterated before the District Magistrate on 16.7.2009.

¶15

Learned counsel for the State submits that the application on 26.8.2008 was not before the

¶16

¶17

competent authority. That no application was made on 26.8.2008, but on 31.7.2008 before the Janta Darbar of the District Sub-Registrar. The formal application was submitted before the District Magistrate on 16.7.2009.

¶18

In the aforesaid Rules with effect from the date of publication i.e. 2.4.2008 an application for refund had to be made before the District Magistrate within six months from the date of purchase.

¶19

Whether it be 26.8.2008 as the petitioner alleges or 31.7.2008 as the respondents state, the application was made within a period of six months. The question next arises is the effect of an application having been made before an authority other than the District Magistrate. If the petitioner had not made any application at all within the prescribed time, the matter would have been entirely different. But if an application has been made, inadvertently before an authority other than the District Magistrate, a Government functionary holding the post before whom it was submitted, cannot be deemed to be aware of the correct law as Sub-Registrar in the Registration Office when prudence dictated that he discharged his duties honestly and sincerely by forwarding it to the District Magistrate rather than choosing to sleep over it

¶20

¶21

completely oblivious of the nature of his duties as a Government servant.

¶22

If the power be there and the Sub-Registrar violated his duties on the defence that it was not his responsibility to forward it to the District Magistrate and it was the responsibility of the petitioner to retrieve it and submit before the District Magistrate, the Court finds it difficult to uphold the interpretation on the part of the Sub-Registrar stultifying the law rather than giving it a useful purpose.

¶23

The order dated 1.9.2009 is set aside.

¶24

The District Magistrate is directed to ensure refund of the amount to the petitioner within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before him.

¶25

The application stands allowed.

¶26

P.K.

¶27

( Navin Sinha, J.)

Surendra Prasad Jaiswal v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Prasad Jaiswal v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit Kumar Vs Sweta Verma and Anr.

Sardar Amarjeet Singh @ Sardar Vs Md.Ahteshamuddin

Randhir Kumar Sinha and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Lal Babu Chowbey Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Uday Shankar Mishra Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Mahabir Das Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.