Orissa High Court
M/S. Utkal Builders Limited vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 17 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.29348 of 2024
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India)
M/s. Utkal Builders Limited, .... Petitioner
Bhubaneswar
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Appeared in this case:-
For Petitioner : Mr. D. Mohapatra, Sr.
Advocate assisted by Mr. P.K.
Singhdeo, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty,
Learned Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing : 09.10.2025 / date of judgment : 17.10.2025
A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner
praying for quashing the Letter No.5094 dated
23.04.2024(Annexure-4) issued by the Collector, Khurda
(Opposite Party No.3) through its Assistant
Collector(Opposite Party No.5) refusing to refund
Rs.2,14,442/-(Rupees two lakhs fourteen thousand four
hundred forty-two) equal to the value of the e-Stamp
Certificate bearing No.IN-ODO6003535013718V on the
ground of limitation assigning the reasons that,
"the petitioner had purchased e-Stamp Certificate
bearing IN-ODO6003535013718V on dated 10.04.2023,
but, he(petitioner) had applied for the refund of the equal
amount of the said e-stamp certificate on dated 31.01.2024
for its non-utilization, which is after the expiry of its
limitation period for application, i.e., after six months since
10.04.2023, for which, the petitioner is not entitled to get
its refund."
To which, the petitioner has challenged by filing
this writ petition.
2. I have already heard from the learned senior counsel
for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the
State(Opposite Parties).
3. Here, in this matter at hand, the reason/ground for
the refusal/rejection of the application of the petitioner for
the refund of amount, i.e., Rs.2,14,442/-(Rupees two lakhs
fourteen thousand four hundred forty-two) equal to the
value of its un-utilized e-stamp certificate by the Collector,
Khurda(Opposite Party No.3) was only on the sole ground of
limitation, as the petitioner had applied for its refund six
months after purchase.
4. Now, the question arises, whether the order of refusal
to the prayer of the petitioner for refund of the equal
amount of his un-utilized e-stamp certificate passed by the
Collector, Khurda(Opposite Party No.3) and communicated
to the petitioner through Letter No.5094 dated 23.04.2024
(Annexure-4) by Opposite Party No.5 is sustainable under
law?
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already
been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Ramesh Chandra Kalra vrs.
Union of India and others : reported in 2024(1) CCC-
268(Delhi) that, the refund of stamp duty cannot be
declined, where applicant has purchased stamp
certificate by paying full consideration for bonafide
purpose.
(ii) In a case between Bano Saiyed Parwaz vrs.
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector
General of Registration and Controller of Stamps
and others : reported in 2024(2) CCC-177(S.C.) that,
when State deals with a citizen concerning return of
stamp duty, it should not ordinarily rely on
technicalities even though such defences may be open
to it--Period of expiry of limitation prescribed under any
law may bar the remedy, but, not right. For which, the
case of the appellant is fit for refund of stamp duty.
State is directed to refund stamp duty deposited by the
appellant.
(iii) In a case between Harshit Harish Jain and
another vrs. State of Maharashtra and others :
reported in 2025(1) CCC-(S.C.)-141(decided by three
Judges Bench)--Refund of Stamp Duty--Denying a
legitimate refund solely on technical grounds of
limitation, fails to strike equitable balance ordinarily
expected in fiscal or quashi-judicial determination.
(iv) In a case between Committee GFIL vrs. Libra
Buildtech. Private Limited and others : reported in
(2015) 16 SCC-31 That, when the State and its officers
deals with a citizen, it should not ordinarily rely on
technicalities and if the State and its officers are
satisfied that, the case of the citizen is a just one, in
that case, even though legal defences may be open to it,
it must act, as an honest person.
(v) In a case between Sukh Dutt Ratra and another
vrs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others : reported
in 2022(II) CLR(S.C.)-101 & 2022(2) CCC(S.C.)-6--State
merely on the ground of delay and laches cannot evade
its legal responsibility towards those from whom private
property has been expropriated. Because, State cannot
shield itself behind ground of delay and laches. In such
a situation, there cannot be a limitation to doing justice.
(vi) In a case between Smt. Sharda Devi vrs.
Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi and others :
reported in 2022(2) CCC-204(Jharkhand)--On
technical grounds, State should not deny to its citizens
just dues.
(vii) In a case between Firm Kaluram Sitaram vrs.
The Dominon of India : reported in AIR 1954
(Bombay)-50--That, when the State and its officers
deals with a citizen, it should not ordinarily rely on
technicalities and if the State and its officers are
satisfied that, the case of the citizen is a just one, in
that case, even though legal defences may be open to it,
it must act, as an honest person.
(viii) In a case between The Postmaster General,
Sambalpur and another vrs. Miss Sanjukta Hota :
reported in 2018(I) CLR-1191 that, it is the high time
that Governments and public authorities adopt the
practice of not relying upon technical pleas for the
purpose of defeating legitimate claims of citizens and do
what is fair and just to the citizens.(Para Nos.14 and
17)
(ix) In a case between Madras Port Trust vrs.
Hymanshu International by its proprietor V.
Vantakatadri(dead) by L.Rs. : reported in 1979(4)
SCC-176 that, it is high time that, Government and
public authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon
technical pleas for the purpose of defeating legitimate
claims of citizens and do what is fair and just to the
citizens.
In a case between Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao
vrs. K. Parasaran and others : reported in AIR
1996(S.C.)-2687 that, State is a virtuous litigant.
(x) In a case between State of Orissa and another
vrs. Sri Dwarika Das Agarwalla : reported in 2017(1)
CLR-313 that, State is a virtuous litigant. When State
deals with a citizen, it should not ordinarily rely on
technicalities. If State is satisfied that the case of the
citizen is just one, even though, legal defences may be
open to it, it must act as an honest person.(Para-18)
5. Here, in this matter at hand, when the impugned
order passed by the Collector, Khurda as per Annexure-4
does not reveal that, the un-utilized stamp papers were
purchased by the petitioner not for any bonafide purpose,
but, when the prayer of the petitioner for refund of the
equal value of the un-utilized e-stamp papers was
rejected/refused by the Collector, Khurda (Opposite Party
No.3) only on the ground of limitation, as the petitioner had
applied for its refund after six months of its purchase and
when as per the clarifications made in the ratio of the
aforesaid decisions that, the State and its officers cannot
deny the legitimate claim of its citizens including the
petitioner only on technical ground of limitation, then, at
this juncture, by applying the principles of law enunciated
in the ratio of the above decisions to this matter at hand, it
is held that, the impugned order, i.e., refusal/rejection to
the prayer of the petitioner for refund of the money equal to
the value of the e-stamp certificates vide IN-
ODO6003535013718V by the Collector, Khurda (Opposite
Party No.3) as per order dated 23.04.2024 (Annexure-4)
cannot be sustainable under law.
For which, the impugned order dated 23.04.2024
(Annexure-4) passed by the Collector, Khurda(Opposite
Party No.3) is liable to be quashed.
So, there is merit in this writ petition filed by the
petitioner. The same is to be allowed.
6. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is
allowed.
7. The impugned order of refusal for returning
Rs.2,14,442/-(Rupees two lakhs fourteen thousand four
hundred forty-two) to the petitioner passed on dated
23.04.2024 (Annexure-4) by the Collector, Khurda(Opposite
Party No.3) is quashed.
8. The Collector, Khurda(Opposite Party No.3) is directed
to refund Rs.2,14,442/-(Rupees two lakhs fourteen
thousand four hundred forty-two), which is equal value of
the un-utilized e-stamp certificate of the petitioner vide IN-
ODO6003535013718V within a period of fifteen days from
the date of communication of this judgment to the
Collector, Khurda(Opposite Party No.3)
9. Registry is directed to communicate this judgment to
the Collector, Khurda(Opposite Party No.3.) immediately.
10. As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is
disposed of finally.
( A.C. Behera )
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 17th of October, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A.
Designation: Personal Assistant
