JUDGMENT

Jaishree Thakur, J.

The petitioner herein seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents authorities to refund Rs.75,60,200/- along with interest on account of excess stamp fee received.

2. The facts, as alleged, are, that the petitioner company intended to purchase plot No. 545C in District Gurugram from Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA). Stamp paper was to be purchased online through the e-portal of Haryana Government i.e respondent No. 1, on 23.11.2017 for a sum of Rs. 7,56,020/-. There was no provision for typing in the words reflecting the amount and on account of an erroneous and malfunction of the software, the legitimate amount of Rs. 7,56,020/- could not be entered resulting in a sum of Rs.75,60,200/- debited from the account of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter approached the competent authorities for refund of the amount of Rs.75,60,200/- as the same had been debited from its account because of the faulty software. The petitioner company being the bona fide purchaser again paid the due stamp duty of Rs. 7,68,500/- through online transaction and got the sale deed registered. Since the amount was not being refunded, the petitioner has presented the instant writ petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner contends that it is only on account of an erroneous software that an amount of Rs.75, 60,200/- was debited from the account of the petitioner, while trying to do an online transaction to purchase stamp fee for registration of the plot. It is contended that there is no method for recovery of the same once the amount is debited wrongly. In fact, the stamp fee that was payable was Rs. 7,56,020/-which was paid afresh on 20.12.2017. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that during the pendency of these proceedings, the amount of Rs. 75, 60,200/- minus 10% has been refunded, which the petitioner would be entitled to as the same has been illegally retained.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the amount of the amount of Rs.75,60,200 minus 10% has been refunded as per the provision of the Section 49 and read section 50(2), 54 of the Indian STAMP ACT 1899 ("the Act of 1899" for short) and, therefore, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous.

5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the pleadings of the case and the law cited.

6. As per the initial claim in the writ petition, the petitioner had urged for refund of Rs. 75,60,200/-. It was submitted that stamp fee of Rs.7,56,020/- was to be purchased online through the Haryana Government portal for the registration of a plot, but on account of the software malfunction, an amount of Rs. 75, 60,200/- was debited from the bank account of the petitioner. It is submitted that there is no method of rectification once the amount stands illegally debited. It is argued that the petitioner immediately made a representation for refund of the said amount, but the respondents failed to refund the same. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondents has argued that there is no proof that there was a software malfunction or technical glitch other than the bald statement of the petitioner. Furthermore, the amount stands refunded under the provisions of the Act of 1899.

7. The argument that an amount of Rs. 75,60,200/- was deducted on account of a software malfunction has been countered by the counsel for the respondents and there is nothing on the record to establish the contention as raised by the counsel for the petitioner. It