Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

Shri Baghel appears for respondent No.4 and submits that a No Objection Certificate has been taken by the concerned authority and the file has also been withdrawn. However, considering the nature of dispute, Shri Baghel was permitted to assist the Court on legal issues.

2. This petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing letters dated 31/05/1995 (Annexure P/1), 28/06/1995 (Annexure P/2) and 16/03/2002 (Annexure P/3).

3. The petitioners have prayed for restraining the respondents from collecting an additional stamp duty of Rs.1 Lakh by requiring the petitioner to execute supplementary agreement in respect of enhancement of credit facility in continuation of loan already availed by the petitioner by creation of mortgage by creating charge over the property with the respondent/bank.

4. Briefly stated, relevant facts which are in narrow encompass, are that the petitioner is a company incorporated under the Company's Act. Petitioner No.2 is one of the share holders and one of the Managing Directors of the Company, which carries on the business of manufacturing Round CTD Bars, Angles, Channels, Square, Flats, Crow Bars etc at Raipur.

5. In order to avail various credit facilities from respondent No.4/bank, the petitioner company created charge over its properties situated in plot No.8 and 9 of industrial area, Raipur. At the time of creating charge over those properties, stamp duty, as leviable under the then existing law was paid. The petitioner/company, however, requested the bank to enhance cash credit limit of Rs.75 lakhs and bank guarantee limit of Rs.40 lakhs. Though the bank accepted the request, vide letter dated 13/03/2002, the bank required the petitioner to accept terms and conditions. It followed another letter dated 16/03/2002 (Annexure P/3) by which, the bank required the petitioner to execute a supplementary agreement of deposit of title deeds towards security of the additional credit facility and bank guarantee limits. It required the petitioner to make payment of Rs.1 lakh, which was protested. When the bank insisted on execution of further agreement for creation of mortgage by creating charge over the property which were already mortgaged earlier for availing the benefit of cash credit facility of bank guarantee, petitioners approached this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner had earlier applied for grant of loan and towards repayment of loan and in order to secure such repayment, the petitioner had already created charge over immovable property by creating mortgage by deposit of title deeds. At that time, the then leviable stamp duty was also paid. Later on, when the petitioner prayed to increase the loan of cash credit facility and bank guarantee, the bank accepted the request without requiring the petitioner to deposit title deeds of any other property but it permitted the petitioner to avail additional facility only on those title deeds which were already deposited with the bank. Therefore, in these circumstances, insistence on the part of the bank to seek execution of a fresh deed of charge by notionally depositing the title deeds already deposited, is unwarranted.

The other submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the letter (Annexure P/1) issued by the Director General, Stamps is also illegal because in respect of creation of mortgage by deposit of title deeds, requirement of additional stamp duty under Section 75 of the Panchayat Act, 1993 is not leviable under the law. He submits that the additional stamp duty could be made leviable only in respect of simple mortgage and no other mortgage, much less deposit of title deeds.

7. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that in the absence of there being any chall