MOHD FARMAN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. K. Yog, J. Petitioner, Mohd. Farman, claimed to be a Registered Contractor and General Order Supplier with the Public Works Department of Uttar Pradesh and other Corporations, contends that the Respondent (authorities of U. P. Public Works Department, Rural Engineering Services) published an advertisement inviting tenders from Registered Contractors in order to execute certain work. The Contractors were required to furnish tenders form quoting rates. On accepting the tenders, Contractor (Petitioner) was required to execute an agreement with the respondents and also to deposit the contract amount as earnest money apart from certain amount as security with an object to ensure that contract work was executed as per terms and conditions of agreement between the concerned parties. In case of default of any of the conditions on the part of either party, amount of security, apart from other consequences was to be forfeited; Petitioner alleges that the Stamp Department issued instructions to all the concerned Departments to charge stamp duty apart from stamp duty over other heads, on security deposit under agreements entered into between the Department and said Contractor. In Paragraph 5 of the petition it is alleged that vide letter dated 15th February, 1996 Respondent No. 5/executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Service (R. E. S.), Division Meerut expressed acceptance of the tender and required the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,563/- as security amount (Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition ).

(2.) PETITIONER is aggrieved due to the instructions contained in the aforesaid letter dated 15th February, 1996 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) directing the petitioner to pay stamp duty on security deposit by prescribing higher rate of stamp duty and not to treat the said refundable security deposit under Article 57, Schedule 1-B of Indian Stamp Act. According to the petitioner, respondents illegally want to charge stamp duty treating said deposit of refun-dable security under Article 40, Schedule 1-B.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel on behalf of the respondents.