Bona fide interpretation and apology

The State said its rejection was based on an interpretation of Rule 218. It submitted that the action had been taken bona fide. The State tendered an unconditional apology. It accepted that it remained duty-bound to implement the Court’s directions. The Court recorded those submissions. It did not need to decide every issue concerning the earlier administrative interpretation. The immediate dispute was resolved through a direct refund direction. The State’s position was considered in the specific circumstances. (Dharmendra Sharma v. M. Arunmozhi & Anr. | 2026 INSC 10)