Tendered Unconditional Apology: Supreme Court Closes Contempt Petitions Against Agra Development Authority
The Supreme Court was considering the contempt petitions instituted by the appellant in the civil appeals alleging that the first respondent (Agra Development Authority) had willfully failed to comply with the earlier directions issued by the Court.
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
While closing the contempt proceedings against the Agra Development Authority, the Supreme Court has asked the State of Uttar Pradesh to refund an amount of Rs 3,99,100 as the cost of unused expired nonjudicial stamp papers purchased by the petitioner. The Apex Court also took note of the fact that the State had tendered an unconditional apology.
The Apex Court was considering the contempt petitions instituted by the appellant in the civil appeals alleging that the first respondent (Agra Development Authority) had willfully failed to comply with the directions issued by the Court in its judgment dated September 6, 2024, rendered in Dharmendra Sharma v. Agra Development Authority.
The Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta stated, “At the same time, respondent no. 2 has candidly conceded that the said action was taken on a bona fide interpretation of the aforesaid provision, has tendered an unconditional apology, and has further stated that respondent no. 2 remains duty-bound to implement the directions issued by this Court in the interest of justice.”
“The contempt petitions qua respondent no. 1 shall stand closed”, it ordered.
Senior Advocate Vipin Sanghi represented the Petitioner, while AOR Sudhir Kulshreshtha represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
In the order dated September 6, 2024, the Court ordered ADA (Agra Development Authority) to return the non-judicial stamp worth Rs 3,99,100 back to the appellant. The Petitioner claimed that it had addressed representations to the Assistant Commissioner of Stamps, Agra, seeking a refund of the amount paid towards the unused twenty-two original stamp papers. However, the Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Agra, rejected the petitioner’s request for a refund of the stamp value, informing him that the same was not refundable. Aggrieved by the communication, the petitioner instituted the contempt petitions.
Arguments
It was the petitioner’s case that although the first respondent (ADA) had complied with the remaining directions issued by the Court i.e. refunding the entire amount deposited by the petitioner along with interest at the rate, and paying an additional sum of Rs. 15,00,000 lakh, however the respondent had failed to refund an amount of Rs 3,99,100 being the cost of the nonjudicial stamp papers purchased by the petitioner. It was further averred that, instead of refunding the said amount, the first respondent returned the twenty-two original stamp papers, which had in the meanwhile expired, through postal communication.
Reasoning
The Bench took note of the fact that in the affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent (State of Uttar Pradesh), it was submitted that the rejection of the petitioner’s application for refund was founded on Rule 218 of the U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942 (as amended), which proscribes refund of physical non-judicial stamp papers after the expiry of a period of eight years. It was further noticed that the respondent State tendered an unconditional apology and assured that it would implement the directions issued by the Court in the interest of justice.
The Bench thus disposed of the contempt petitions by issuing a direction to the respondent State to refund a sum of Rs 3,99,100 to the petitioner, upon return of the non-judicial stamp papers received by him within two months.
Cause Title: Dharmendra Sharma v. M. Arunmozhi & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 10)
Appearance
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Vipin Sanghi, Advocate Om Prakash, AOR Vikas Singh Jangra
Respondent: AOR Sudhir Kulshreshtha, AOR Shaurya Sahay, Advocate Aman Jaiswal