IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, should be interpreted in a manner that upholds equity and fairness, and that the application of these provisions should not result in unjust denial of refund in appropriate cases.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. - The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 12.02.2019 (hereafter 'the impugned order') whereby, his application for refund of stamp duty (E-stamp Certificate) for an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- was rejected on the ground that the same was filed beyond the period of six months from the date of its purchase. In the aforesaid context, the petitioner impugns Section 50(2) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereafter 'the Act') as being ultra vires Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also impugns Section 54(c) of the Act as ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Factual Context

2. The petitioner entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 10.06.2011 (hereafter 'the Agreement') for the purchase of an immovable property bearing the address, 27-A, Malviya Nagar, Delhi-110017, admeasuring 100 sq.yds. (hereafter 'the subject property') at a total sale consideration of Rs. 3,40,00,000/- with one Sh. Inder Mohan Kapur. Thereafter, disputes arose between the parties in respect of the Agreement. The petitioner lodged an FIR (FIR No.537/2014) under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with the Malviya Nagar Police Station, New Delhi. He also instituted civil proceedings in respect of the Agreement.

3. Sh. Inder Mohan Kapur filed a bail application (Bail Application No. 1337/2014) before this Court, which was taken up on 06.06.2014. During the course of those proceedings, the learned counsel appearing for Sh. Inder Mohan Kapur submitted that he was willing to transfer the subject property to the petitioner, subject to the terms and conditions as may be settled between the parties. He also submitted that Sh. Inder Mohan Kapur had agreed to deposit a sum of Rs. 60,00,000/-, which he had received from the petitioner. On that date, the petitioner was also present in Court and had also expressed his willingness to settle the matter through mediation.

4. After hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor, the Court directed that Sh. Inder Mohan Kapur not be arrested subject to his depositing a sum of Rs. 60,00,000/- with the Registrar General of this Court. Since the parties had expressed their willingness to settle the disputes through mediation, the Court directed the parties to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre on 09.06.2014 for an amicable resolution of their disputes.

5. The petitioner claims that in the mediation proceedings Sh. Inder Mohan Kapur expressed his willingness to convey the subject property. Since, the parties were in advance stage of mediation and it appeared that the disputes would be resolved with conveyance of the subject property; on 10.08.2015, the petitioner purchased stamp duty (E-stamp Certificate No. DL41156694838388N) of a value of Rs. 15,00,000/-. Thereafter, on 30.10.2015, this Court allowed Sh. Inder Mohan Kapur's bail application.

6. Although, the aforesaid mediation proceedings continued, the same did not fructify in a settlement entailing conveyance of the subject property to the petitioner. In the circumstances, on 11.04.2016, the petitioner filed an application with respondent no. 3, Collector of Stamps, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereafter 'the Collector') seeking a refund of the stamp duty paid.

7. However, the petitioner's application was not processed. In the circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition [W.P.(C) No. 12104/2018 captioned Ramesh Chandra Kalra v. GNCT of Delhi & Anr.], inter alia, praying that the Collector be directed to process the petitioner's application for the refund of Rs. 15,00,000/-against purchase of e-stamp paper along with interest, at the rate of 12% per annum. The said petition was disposed of by an order dated 14.11.2018 directing the respondents to either refund the e-stamp duty within a period of two weeks from that date or communicate the reasons for refusing to do so.

8. Thereafter, by the impugn