YOGENDRA KUMAR Vs. V

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

(2.) The skeletal facts are that a tender was invited by the respondents to repair different roads in District Mathura. The amount of the said work is not mentioned deliberately to avoid complications. The tender of the petitioner was accepted. The respondent issued a letter of acceptance with a clause that total security along with stamp duty should be deposited within ten days. The petitioner wrote to the respondents that he is supposed to pay stamp duty as per Article 57 (b) Schedule 1 B of the Stamp Act and for a period of eight months, no work order was passed.

(3.) It is in these circumstances, that the matter assume importance as such the demand would have been made by the Executive Engineers of each District as this issue had arisen before this Court before one and a half decades but it appears that the authorities concerned have not shown that the said decision is binding on them as a similar issue came before this Court before three years and the judgment was struck down as it was beyond the jurisdiction of the authorities to demand the stamp duty beyond Article 57 (b) Schedule 1 B of the Stamp Act.