Delhi High Court
Krishan Kumar vs The Sub-Divisional Magistrate ... on 2 December, 2020
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 20.10.2020
Date of decision: 02.12.2020
+ W.P.(C) No.8221/2020
KRISHAN KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Prashant Kumar Mittal, Adv.
versus
THE SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE ROHINI & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Gautam Narayan, ASC for
GNCTD with Ms.Dacchita Shahi
& Mr.Adithya Nair, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a Writ of
Mandamus directing the respondent to refund the amount of Rs.
7,45,000/- of unused/un-utilized e-court fees purchased by the petitioner.
2. The petitioner had purchased e-court fees for an amount of Rs.
7,45,000/- on 31.10.2017 from the Stock Holding Corporation of India
Limited (SHCIL). The petitioner claims that the said court fees was
purchased for filing of a Suit, however, later the Suit was not filed and
the court fees remained unutilized. The petitioner applied for refund of
the court fees vide application dated 22.02.2018 to the respondent no.1.
By the Impugned Order dated 27.08.2019, the respondent no.1 advised
the petitioner to submit the Court order in respect of refund of the e-court
fees. The petitioner has thereafter filed the present petition praying for
the above direction.
W.P.(C) No.8221/2020 Page 1
3. The court fees is payable on a document at the time of its filing in
terms of the Court-Fees Act, 1870 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
Section 25 of the Act provides for collection of the fee by Stamps.
Section 26 of the Act further provides that the stamps used to denote any
fee chargeable under the Act shall be impressed or adhesive, or partly
impressed and partly adhesive, as the appropriate Government may, by
notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time direct. Section 27
of the Act empowers the appropriate Government to make Rules for
regulating the supply of stamps; the number of stamps to be used for
denoting any fee chargeable under the Act; the renewal of damaged or
spoiled stamps; and the keeping of accounts of all stamps used under the
Act. Section 30 of the Act provides that no document requiring a stamp
under the Act shall be filed or acted upon in any proceedings in any
Court or office until the stamp has been cancelled.
4. A reading of the above provisions would clearly indicate that the
stamp is the mode of payment of court fees at the time of filing of the
document. The incident of payment of such fees is the filing of the
document and not the purchase thereof.
5. In Secretary, Government of Madras, Home Department and
Another vs. Zenith Lamp and Electrical Ltd., (1973) 1 SCC 162, the
Supreme Court has held that the 'fees taken in Court' are not taxes and
must have relation to the administration of civil justice. While levying
fees, the appropriate legislature is competent to take into account all
relevant factors, the value of the subject matter of the dispute, the
various steps necessary in the prosecution of a suit or matter, the entire
W.P.(C) No.8221/2020 Page 2
cost of the upkeep of Courts and officers administering civil justice, the
vexatious nature of a certain type of litigation and other relevant matters,
however, the legislature is not competent to make litigants contribute to
the increase of general public revenue as it cannot tax litigation.
6. In Aya Singh Tirlok Singh vs. Munshi Ram Amta Ram,
MANU/DE/0014/1968, this Court while considering the issue of refund
of the excess court fee on the Memorandum of Appeal, held that unless
the liability to pay court fees is clearly supportable on the plain statutory
language, a suitor is not liable to pay any court fees; the Court has
inherent power to direct refund of excess court fee paid either under
compulsion or under a bona fide but erroneous impression, if the cause of
justice so demands.
7. In relation to the Stamp Act, 1899, this Court in Dr.Poornima
Advani & Anr. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr, 2018 SCC OnLine Del
10698, has held that the State cannot retain money without authority of
law. It cannot be so retained if the event of charge has not occurred.
8. In the present case, the event of charge of collecting court fee has
not occurred as the petitioner claims that he did not file the Suit for the
purposes of which the e-stamp paper was purchased. Therefore, there was
no authority with the State to retain the amount once the petitioner wishes
to return the same without it being utilized or spoiled in any manner.
Infact, for utilization of the stamp, as noted in Section 30 of the Act, the
same has to be cancelled. In such cases, insistence of the respondent on
Court order would also be completely unnecessary. It will lead to
unnecessary litigation and pressure on court. The policy of the State has
W.P.(C) No.8221/2020 Page 3
to be to avoid and not encourage the same. The respondent must refund
this amount on being satisfied of its non-use.
9. In view of the above, it is directed that the respondent, on being
satisfied that the e-stamp paper purchased by the petitioner has remained
unutilized, shall refund the amount of Rs.7,45,000/- to the petitioner
within a period of four weeks from today.
10. It is noticed that in many other cases, request for refund of court
fee wrongly purchased or remaining unutilized, is being denied by the
respondent advising the party to obtain court order allowing such refund.
It is therefore, directed that in such other cases as well, on being satisfied
that the court fee has remained unutilized/ unspoiled, the respondent must
refund the court fee without insisting on any further court order in this
regard.
11. The petition is allowed with the above directions. There shall be no
order as to cost.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
DECEMBER 02, 2020/rv
W.P.(C) No.8221/2020 Page 4
