IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1839 of 2010 1. MUNIRA BEGUM W/O SAEEDUR RAHMAN R/O VILL.- SAKRAILI, P.O. SEMAPUR, P.S. BARARI, DISTT.- KATIHAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KATIHAR 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, KATIHAR 4. THE UNDER REGISTRAR KATIHAR, DISTT.- KATIHAR ----------- 2. 05.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The controversy in this case relates to the application preferred by the petitioner for refund of the money deposited by him for purchase of non- judicial stamp paper intended for execution of a title deed which was never done. It appears from the impugned order dated 25.8.2009 of the Refund Additional Collector at Katihar that the amount for purchase of the non- judicial stamp paper was deposited by the petitioner in the State Bank of India on 17.9.2008. The petitioner claims to have applied for refund on 18.3.2009. The contention on his behalf therefore is that he applied within six months as provided under Rule 2(3) of the Bihar Stamp (Refund of Amount of Stamp duty by Bank Challan) Rules, 2008, notified on 17.3.2008 (hereinafter called the Rules). Counsel for the State relies on the 2 impugned order to submit the application for refund has been made beyond the period of six months prescribed in Rule 2(3). No application was filed before the Commissioner under Rule 2(4). The Court notices that during this period of six months, falls the month of February which has only 28 days while some other months have 31 days. The Court does not consider it necessary to go into that mathematical exercise in view of the provision of Rule 2(4). It provides that an application can be made before the Commissioner of the Division within a period of one year also from the date of deposit. If the power be there in the Commissioner, without resorting to technicality and the petitioner has applied on 18.3.2009, and if for purposes of discussion it is deemed to be beyond a period of six months, the Commissioner shall still have jurisdiction to deal with the matter under Rule 2(4). The legislative intention in framing the Rules appears to be for protecting the interest of the citizen who for unavoidable reasons was unable to utilize the non-judicial stamp paper within time stipulated. The purpose also was to prevent unjust enrichment to the State. Simultaneously, the State 3 could not be imposed with stale liability resulting in wastage of precious time in hunting old records. Keeping the aforesaid in mind and that the petitioner had admittedly submitted an application for refund before the District Magistrate and not the Commissioner, but within one year the Court disposes the application with the observation that if the petitioner files an application before the Commissioner of the Division within a period of 30 days from today, let the Commissioner examine matters and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before him. In order to facilitate such consideration by the Commissioner afresh in accordance with law, for reasons discussed above, the order dated 25.8.2009 is set aside. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)