IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6286 of 2009 BENI MADHAV TIWARY . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 3. 13.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Collector-cum-Incharge Legal Section Collectriate, Patna in S.R. Case No. 35 of 2006-07 as affirmed in Revision No. 48 of 2007 by the Board of Revenue. The impugned order denies him refund of Rs. 39,750/- in view of the non judicial stamp purchased by him for registration of a sale deed which never came into existence. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being unable to utilize the stamp purchased on 10.3.2006 for execution of the sale deed applied for refund on 12.6.2006. After verification and satisfaction of genuineness of the stamp refund was ordered by the District Magistrate on 21.8.2006. It is further acknowledged that the petitioner required to take necessary steps within six months under Rule 46 of the Bihar Stamp Rules failing which the application shall be struck off and the Stamp could be destroyed by the Collector. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a short submission that both before the Deputy Collector and the 2 Board of Revenue, the petitioner had taken a defence of his medical illness and inability to pursue matters on medical ground within six months. Both the orders noticed the ground but failed to deal with the same. Counsel for the State reiterates Rule 46 of the Bihar Stamp Rules to submit that mere expiry of six months was sufficient without further more. The petitioner has only himself to blame for not having acted with promptitude. The Court at this stage in exercise of power of judicial review is primary concerned with the decision making process. The petitioner had a defence of illness to explain non compliance with Rule-46 of the Bihar Stamp Rules. Whether the defence was acceptable or not, is not the issue to be considered at this stage. The only question for consideration is that has his defence of illness been considered in accordance with law or not. It may be accepted or it may be rejected after such consideration. That is not the concern of the Court. In absence of any discussion either in the original order or the appellate order of the defence of illness taken by the petitioner, the Court finds it difficult to sustain the impugned orders dated 14.5.2008 and 1.8.2007. The impugned orders are set aside. The petitioner is held entitled to refund of the money in 3 pursuance of the order dated 21.8.2006. Let such refund be made to the petitioner within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)