# Seema Padalia & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 182
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-21
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 10692 of 2026
- **Bench:** Siddharth Nandan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/seema-padalia-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54431
- **Pages:** 9

## Text

182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

18. The law relating to judicial review in contractual and tender matters is now well settled. In Tata
Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651, the Supreme Court has authoritatively held that the Court does
not sit as a court of appeal over administrative decisions in contractual matters and that the scope of interference
is confined to examining whether the decision-making process is vitiated by arbitrariness, irrationality or mala
fides. It was further held that the terms of invitation to tender fall within the realm of contract and the
Government must be allowed a fair degree of latitude in such matters.

19. Further, in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC
818, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the interpretation of tender documents by the employer
must be accorded due deference, and unless such interpretation is found to be perverse, arbitrary or
actuated by mala fides, the Court ought not to interfere. The employer, being the author of the tender, is the
best judge of the meaning, scope and intent of its conditions, and its understanding is entitled to primacy. It
has further been held that even if two interpretations are possible, the Court should not substitute its own
view in place of that of the tendering authority, so long as the interpretation adopted is a plausible and
reasonable one.

20. Applying the aforesaid principle, this Court holds that even otherwise, the interpretation placed by the
respondent authorities upon Clause 2 of the Circular dated 30.09.2020 does not warrant substitution. The said
interpretation, namely that only such earlier tender which failed on account of lack of adequate bids can be
treated as the first tender, is a reasonable and purposive interpretation.

21. In the absence of any material to demonstrate mala fides, favouritism, bias or violation of any statutory
provision, this Court finds no ground to interfere in the tender process in exercise of jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.

22. The action of the respondents in cancelling the bids in respect of the aforesaid 25 works and issuing a
fresh tender is in consonance with the settled principles governing public procurement and does not suffer from
any illegality, arbitrariness or infirmity warranting interference by this Court. The tendering authority is entitled
to ensure adequate competition and transparency in the bidding process, and such decision cannot be faulted in
the facts of the present case.

23. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 182
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

Writ C No. 10692 of 2026

Seema Padalia & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
4 All. Seema Padalia & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
183
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
i. Whether the conditions in relation to the time period prescribed under Rule 218, prior to the amendment
dated 20.12.2017, shall be applicable or the amended Rule 218 will be applicable in the facts of the case.
ii. Once this Court vide its judgment dated 06.03.2025, had specifically given the benefit of refund of the
stamp duty, to the petitioner, whether it was open for the authorities to deny the claim of the petitioner on the
ground of limitation having expired.

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Sections 49, 49(d),
49(d)(4), 50, 50(3), 53 - U.P. Stamp Amendment Rules, 2017 & 2021 - Rule 218: - Writ Petition
under Article 226 - filed against rejection order, seeking refund of stamp duty - petitioners purchased stamp in
2015 for tripartite agreement with developer and Noida Authority, but agreement remained incomplete due to
builder's default and refusal of Noida Authority to sign - Refund of Stamp Duty - Limitation - Retrospective
application of procedural amendments - Legitimate expectation - Builder's default - State Government's
power to relax limitation - Rule 218 (U.P. Stamp Rules) - Amendments of 2017 & 2021 - Creation of new
disability - Non-retrospective application - Binding effect of earlier Division Bench judgment between same
parties - Petitioners pleaded that limitation law is procedural and cannot retrospectively create new disabilities
- respondents countered with Sections 49 & 50 of Stamp Act - Court finds that amendments to Rule 218
created new disability and cannot apply retrospectively, especially when earlier judgment attained finality -
court held that, rejection order unsustainable and hence the writ petition is disposed of, with directions to the
respondents to refund stamp duty in question within two months.
(Para - 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26)
WP Disposed of. (E-11)
CASE LAW CITED
Harshit Harish Jain v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 LawSuit (SC) 105.
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602.

LIST OF ACTS
Constitution of India - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - U.P. Stamp Amendment Rules, 2017 - U.P. Stamp
Amendment Rules, 2021.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Writ Petition - Refund of stamp duty, limitation, retrospective application, legitimate expectation, procedural
law, spoiled stamps, Rule 218, tripartite agreement, builder's default, Noida Authority.

CASE ARISING FROM
Rejection order dated 25.09.2025 denying refund of stamp duty as time-barred, despite earlier Division Bench
judgment dated 06.03.2025 in Writ-C No.39180 of 2024 granting refund benefit.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): - Shri Rahul Sahai, Advocate,
Counsel for Respondent(s): - Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh (for respondent no. 6), learned Standing Counsel.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth Nandan, J.)

1. Instructions dated 16.04.2026 has been filed by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
The same is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.6 and learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.
184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. The petitioners have sought quashing of the order dated 25.09.2025, by way of which the
claim for refund of the stamp has been rejected, being time barred while deciding the refund
application of the petitioners, in pursuance of the order dated 06.03.2025 passed in Writ-C
No.39180 of 2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on para-9 of the said
judgment dated 06.03.2025, to submit that this Court had given a positive finding in favour of the
petitioners' claim, that the benefit of refund of the stamp duty would be applicable in the case of the
petitioners. For ready reference para-9 is reproduced below:

"9. Upon perusal of the averments made, the documents annexed and after going through
the ratio of Supreme Court in Harshit Harish Jain & Anr (supra), we are of the view that in the
present case the impugned order rejecting the refund of the petitioners is passed on technical
reasons only. From the facts, it is clear that the agreement between the parties has taken place prior
to the amendment that has been carried in the stamp papers, and accordingly, following the ratio of
the Supreme Court Judgment, it is crystal clear that the benefit of refund of the stamp duty would
be applicable in the present case. "

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on the unamended Rule 218 to
submit that the proviso provides that the State Government may irrespective of any time limit,
disposed off the application for relief of refund of the stamp, even in cases in which period of 2
years has expired.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that Chapter-V of Indian Stamp Act,
1899 (herein after referred to as Act, 1899), provides for "allowance for stamp in certain cases".

6. Section 49(d)(4) of the Act states as under:

"49. Allowance for spoiled stamps: Subject to such rules as may be made by [the [State
Government]] as to the evidence to be required, or the enquiry to be made, the Collector may, on
application made within the period prescribed in section 50, and if he is satisfied as to the facts,
make allowance for impressed stamps spoiled in the cases herein after mentioned, namely:

(d) the stamp used for an instrument executed by any party thereto which

(4) for want of the execution thereof by some material party, and his inability or refusal to
sign the same, is in fact incomplete and insufficient for the purpose for which it was intended:""

7. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that Collector may, on application made with the
period prescribed in Section 50, and if he satisfied to make such allowances, for impressed stamps
spoiled, in the cases mentioned under sub-clause (d); and in the facts of the present case, the
Section 49(d) read with Section 50(3). For ready reference Section 50(3) is also reproduced below:

50. Application for relief under section 49 when to be made The application for relief
under Section 49 shall be made within the following periods, that is to say -
4 All. Seema Padalia & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
185

(3) in the case of a stamped paper in which an instrument has been executed by any of the
parties thereto, within six months after the date of the instrument, or, if it is not dated, within six
months after the execution thereof by the person by whom it was first or alone executed: ""

8. It is not disputed between the parties that the stamp was purchased in the year 2015 and the
same was done so with an expectation that the tripartite agreement which was contemplated after
the deposit of the requisite fee, shall be executed between the petitioners, Noida Authority and the
developer. But however, the respondent no.6 i.e. the Noida Authority had not signed the said
agreement, though was executed between the petitioner and the developer, on the ground that the
developer had not paid the dues to the development authority and also the completion certificate
has not been issued.

9. From the aforesaid fact, it is evident that the act of purchase of the stamp was with a
legitimate expectation that the tripartite agreement shall be executed but the same was not executed
on account of the fact, that there was inaction on the part of the developer, for which the Noida
Authority had refused to sign the agreement.

Issues :-

10. This Court has to examine the following issues:

i. Whether the conditions in relation to the time period prescribed under Rule 218, prior
to the amendment dated 20.12.2017, shall be applicable or the amended Rule 218 will be applicable
in the facts of the case.

ii. Once this Court vide its judgment dated 06.03.2025, had specifically given the benefit
of refund of the stamp duty, to the petitioner, whether it was open for the authorities to deny the
claim of the petitioner on the ground of limitation having expired.

Discussion :

Since the issues are co-related, the same are being jointly death with:-

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide order dated 16.05.2024, the
claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that vide notification dated 25.03.2021, [U.P.
Stamp Amendment Rules, 2021], Rule 218 was amended; wherein, it was provided that from the
date of purchase of the stamp, after 8 years the stamp shall not be returned; and the same was
treated to be time barred.

12. He further submits that the order dated 16.05.2024 was challenged before this Court in
Writ-C No.39180 of 2024 and this Court vide its order dated 06.03.2025 placing reliance on
various decisions of this Court, as well as, the Apex Court had set aside the impugned order dated
16.05.2024
186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. This Court had held that the order rejecting the refund of the stamp, being passed on
technical reasons only, and the fact that the agreement between the parties had taken place prior to
the amendment, that has been carried in the stamp papers, and accordingly, the ratio of the
judgment of the Apex Court, in Harshit Harish Jain vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2025
LawSuit (SC) 105, is applicable.

14. At this juncture, it may be relevant to take note of the 2 amendments, which were made to
Rule 218. For ready reference the amendment dated 20.12.2017 and 25.03.2021 is reproduced
below:

"उपरोक्त तनयम-218 में अतिसूचना सुंख्या-12/2017/1385/94 स्टा०तन०-2-2017-700(265)/2016 तदनाक 20.12.2017
द्वारा पररवतसन तकया गया जो तनम्नवत् है-

Column-1
Column-2
Existing Rule
Rule as hereby substituted
218-The refund or renewal of the value of
spoiled stamps shall be made strictly in
accordance with Section 49 to 53, Chapter V of
the Stamp Act and application must be made
within the periods prescribed by Section 50. But
in cases where the period allowed by the Act for
the refund or renewal has operated as a serious
hardship and the holders of piled or useless
stamps, or stamps not required for immediate
use are, without any fraudulent motive,
unavoidably prevented from applying for relief
within the prescribed period, the collector is
authorized to allow refund or renewal of spoiled
or useless stamps, or the repurchase of stamps
not required: Provided that the application for
refund or renewal is made within two years
from the date of purchase of the stamps or
within two years from the date on which the
stamps were spoiled or rendered useless.

Provided further that the State Government may
irrespective of any time limit, dispose of
applications for relief in the cases contemplated
in the above proviso, in which the period of two
years has expired.
218- The refund or renewal of the value of
spoiled stamps shall be made in accordance with
Section 49 to 53, Chapter V of the Stamp Act,
1899. The application for the refund or renewal
should be presented before the Assistant
Commissioner, Stamp. Assistant Commissioner,
Stamp shall dispose the case of refund or renewal
of spoiled or useless or such stamps which are not
required, provided that the application for refund
is presented within two years from the date of
purchase of the stamp.

However after the expiry of two years but within
a period of four years from the date of purchase
of such stamp, the approval for renewal or refund
may be granted by The Deputy Commissioner
Stamp.

However after the expiry of four years but within
eight years the renewal or refund may be done
after the approval of the Government.

There shall be no renewal or refund after the
period of eight years from the date of purchase of
the stamps.

Provided further that no application shall be
accepted after the period of one year from the
date of amendment in this rule or its publication
4 All. Seema Padalia & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
187
in government notification in cases as mentioned
in above rule, where the period of two years has
expired or where the stamp is purchased two
years ago and after the expiry of two years the
action was to be taken by the state government
regarding refund of the value of such stamp or the
stamps which are not required.

उक्त तनयम-218 में प न अतिसूचना सुंख्या-5/2021/398/94-स्टा०तन०-2-2021-700(265)/2016 तदनाक 25.03.2021 द्वारा
तनम्न पररवतसन तकये गये-

Column-1
Column-2
Existing Rule
Rule as hereby substituted
218.- The refund or renewal of the value of
spoiled stamps shall be made in accordance with
Section 49 to 53 Chapter V of the Stamp Act,
1899 The application for the refund or renewal
should be presented before the Commissioner,
Stamp Assistant Commissioner, Stamp shall
dispose the case of refund or renewal of spoiled
or useless or such stamps which are not required,
provided that the application for refund is
presented within two years from the date of
purchase of the stamp

However after the expiry of two years but within
a period of four years from the date of purchase
of such stamp, the approval for renewal or refund
may be granted by The Deputy Commissioner
Stamp

However after the expiry of four years but within
eight years the renewal or refund may be done
after the approval of the Government

There shall be no renewal or refund after the
period of eight years from the date of purchase of
the stamps.

Provided further that no application shall be
accepted after the period of one year from the
date of amendment in this rule or its publication
in government notification in cases as mentioned
218.- The refund or renewal of the value of
spoiled stamps shall be made in accordance with
Section 49 to 55, Chapter V of the Indian Stamp
Act, 1899. The application for the refund or
renewal should be presented before the Assistant
Commissioner, Stamp. Assistant Commissioner,
Stamp shall dispose the case of refund or
renewal of spoiled or useless or such stamps
which are not required, provided that the
application for refund is presented within two
years from the date of purchase of the stamp.

However after the expiry of two years but within
a period of four years from the date of purchase
of such stamp, the approval for renewal or refund
may be granted by the Deputy Commissioner
Stamp.

However after the expiry of four years but within
eight years the renewal or refund may be done
after the approval of the Commissioner Stamps
Uttar Pradesh.

There shall be no renewal or refund after the
period of eight years from the date of purchase of
the stamps.
188 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in above rule, where the period of two years has
expired or where the stamp is purchased two
years ago and after the expiry of two years the
action was to be taken by the state government
regarding refund of the value of such stamp or
the stamps which are not required.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted, if the amendment dated 20.12.2017
and 25.03.2021 applies to the facts of the present case, the claim of the petitioner shall be ousted on
the ground of limitation; but however, he submits placing reliance on Section 50 that the scheme of
Act contemplates that the application for relief under Section 49 shall be made within a period, in
case of a stamp paper in which an instrument has been executed by "any" of the parties thereto, of 6
months, after the date of instrument; and as such the cause of action accrues within 6 months from
the date of the instrument.

16. He further refers to Rule 218 which provides that the refund shall be made strictly in
accordance with Section 49 to 53 Chapter-V of the Act, 1899, and an application must be made
within the period prescribed by Section 50. However, in cases where the period operates as a
serious hardship and the holder of the stamp, without any fraudulent motive, is unavoidably
prevented from applying for relief within the prescribed period, the Collector is authorized to allow
refund and the period of 2 years provided therein can also be relaxed, at the instance of the State
Government.

17. In view of the aforesaid, he submits that the scheme of Act, itself contemplates that the
cause of action would arise within 6 months and once the cause of action has arisen, the law
applicable on the said date shall be applicable i.e. the unamended Rule 218, as it existed prior to
20.12.2017.

18. Though at the first instance, the aforesaid argument seems to be attractive but in the facts
of the case, admittedly, the application for refund was filed on 27.04.2024; and accordingly the said
argument cannot be accepted, as the date of commencement of the cause of action and the initiation
of proceedings are distinct.

19. However, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the situation, herein, clearly spells
out that the petitioner with a legitimate expectation, for execution of the tripartite agreement, had
purchased the stamp and the builder had also entered into an agreement; and only the signature of
the representative of the Noida Authority was required to complete the tripartite agreement.

20. It is the specific case of the petitioner, that he was continuously pursuing with the Noida
Authority and eventually when his claim was rejected on 16.05.2024, he had approached this
Court; and this Court vide judgment dated 06.03.2025, had recorded a specific finding that "the
benefit of refund of stamp duty would be applicable in the present case".

21. Now I come to the second issue. It has not been disputed by the parties that the Division
Bench judgment of this Court, dated 06.03.2025 in Writ-C No.39180 of 2024, between the same
4 All. Seema Padalia & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
189
parties, has attained finality; and it is also trite law that the laws relating to forum and limitation is
procedural in nature, and is presumed to be retrospective in its application, unless such a
construction is textually impossible. However, a procedural statute should not generally speaking
be applied retrospective, where the result would be to create new disabilities or obligations or the
impose new duties in respect of transactions already accomplished (Reference: Hitendra Vishnu
Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1994 SCC (4) 602).

22. In the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows in
Paragraph No. 26:

26. The Designated Court has held that the amendment would operate retrospectively and
would apply to the pending cases in which investigation was not complete on the date on which the
Amendment Act came into force and the challan had not till then been filed in the court. From the
law settled by this Court in various cases the illustrative though not exhaustive principles which
emerge with regard to the ambit and scope of an Amending Act and its retrospective operation may
be culled out as follows:

(i) A statute which affects substantive rights is presumed to be prospective in operation
unless made retrospective, either expressly or by necessary intendment, whereas a statute which
merely affects procedure, unless such a construction is textually impossible, is presumed to be
retrospective in its application, should not be given an extended meaning and should be strictly
confined to its clearly defined limits.

(ii) Law relating to forum and limitation is procedural in nature, whereas law relating to
right of action and right of appeal even though remedial is substantive in nature.

(iii) Every litigant has a vested right in substantive law but no such right exists in
procedural law.

(iv) A procedural statute should not generally speaking be applied retrospectively where
the result would be to create new disabilities or obligations or to impose new duties in respect of
transactions already accomplished.

(v) A statute which not only changes the procedure but also creates new rights and
liabilities shall be construed to be prospective in operation, unless otherwise provided, either
expressly or by necessary implication."

23. The question of limitation which was earlier available, now in cases where there was
hardship and without any fraudulent motive, the purchaser of the stamp was prevented from
applying for relief within the prescribed period, Rule 218 prescribed that the State Government
may irrespective of any time limit, dispose off the application for relief, even in cases the 2 years
had lapsed.
190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

24. By way of the amendments dated 25.03.2021 and 20.12.2017, created a new disability, by
virtue of which the said relaxation at the instance of the State Government, was confined eventually
to a period of 8 years from the date of purchase of the stamp.

25. In view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Hitendra Vishnu
Thakur (supra) and the undisputed position that the judgment dated 06.03.2025 has attained
finality, which in clear terms provided, that the petitioners' claim cannot be avoided for technical
reasons and is entitled to the benefit of refund of the stamp duty, this Court is inclined to hold that
the disability which is created by the amendment dated 20.12.2017 and 25.03.2021 cannot be
applied, even retrospectively.

26. In the facts of the present case, though by the time the petitioner had moved their
application for refund, the new amendments were already in place, but the time spent in pursuing
the authorities to enter into a Tripartite Agreement and eventually being rejected, for no fault of
their own but that of the builder, the disability which is created by the subsequent amendment,
cannot be enforced, against the petitioners, in the facts of the present case, as also held by the Apex
Court, in the case of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur (Supra); and for the reasons stated in the judgment
dated 06.03.2025, more particularly in para-9 in Writ-C No.39180 of 2024, between the same
parties, which has attained finality, the order dated 29.09.2025 is hereby set aside with a direction
to the respondents to refund the stamp in terms of the application dated 27.04.2024 within a period
of 2 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

27. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 190
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 12311 of 2026

Smt. Sarita Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether cancellation of the petitioner's highest bid in e-auction for mining lease under Rule 28(3) of the U.P.
Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 2021 was arbitrary?

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Constitution of India - Articles 21, 226 - U.P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules,
2021 - Rules 23(4), 28(3): - Writ Petition under Article 226 - against order of the District Magistrate
cancelling petitioner's highest bid in e-auction and subsequent notification for fresh auction, seeking quashing