JAGMOHAN SINGH Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners purchased court fee stamp worth Rs. 54,072/- for filing an appeal in the High Court. Since the Court fee stamp was not used, an application was moved before the Collector, Chandigarh, for refund of the amount of the Court fee stamp. Such an application was submitted on February 20, 1992, copy of which is Annexure P. 1. This was filed under Section 49 of the Stamp Act. Since the amount was not refunded inspite of legal notice, copy Annexure P. 4 dated October 12, 1992, the present writ petition was filed on December 12, 1992 for refund of the aforesaid amount with 18% interest thereon from the date of the application On notice of motion having been issued, written statement has been filed by the Collector, Chandigarh the respondent inter alia asserting that refund Voucher No. 30 dated January 4, 1993 for a sum of Rs. 48,665/was sought to be delivered to the petitioner personally on January 6, 1993. On his refusal the voucher was sent by registered post on January 19, 1993. It is further stated that competent authority to grant refund of Court fee stamp was the Commissioner, Chandigarh Division, Chandigarh that is Home Secretary Chandigarh Administration. After completion of the formalities under the rules the claim for the refund was forwarded to the Commissioner vide letter dated May, 21, 1992 and sanction of the Commissioner was received on January 1, 1993. It was thereafter that the voucher was sent by registered post.

(2.) THE question for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner should be allowed interest on account of delay in payment of the amount of Rs 48,665/ -. Shri R. P. Sharma, Record Keeper Judicial Record room, Deputy Commissioner's Office, Chandigarh is present in Court and from the file of the Collector, has stated that there was no inordinate delay in handling the matter in the office of the Collector. We also observe from the annexures filed alongwith the writ petition that the Collector had sent the matter to the Tehsildar (R) Chandigarh who in turn called upon Shri K. S. Grewal, Advocate for the petitioners to appear in person to make a statement on May 8, 1992. This letter was written on April 8, 1992 copy Annexures P. 3. It was thereafter that the Collector referred the matter to the Commissioner after completing the formalities. In fact the delay occurred in the office of the Commissioner (Home Secretary), from May 9, 1992 to January 1, 1993, for which no explanation worth the name has been given in the written statement filed in this writ petition. Nothing was required to be done in the matter of verification of the claim in the office of the Commissioner and we take it that only a note was to be prepared by the dealing assistant for which formal orders of the Commissioner were to be obtained in routine. For such an action a reasonable time of one month at the most could have taken. Allowing the same the sanction should have been granted in the month of June, 1992. The petitioners have been deprived of their money for no rhyme or reason for a period of about six months, after allowing the reasonable time as referred to above for which the petitioners must be compensated by way of interest. Thus, while allowing the writ petition, we direct the respondent to pay interest at the rate of Rs. 12% p. a. for six months on the amount of Rs. 46,665/ -. This should be done within a period of one month. The petitioners will get costs of Rs. 1,000/- as they have been forced to file this writ petition for which they were not to be blamed. The amount of the interest and the costs would be paid to the petitioners within one month as stated above.