( 1 ) AFOREMENTIONED Writ petitions, listed in bunch as connected cases, on their pleadings, raise a common legal question, viz. what Stamp Duty is chargeable on security deposit in pursuance of a term and condition of an agreement to ensure performance of work-contract in question executed between concerned respective parties in the above Writ petition? In other words - whether a document/deed furnishing security, as above, should be treated as mortgaged deed under section 2 (17) or a security deed under article 57 (b) of Schedule 1-B, Indian Stamp act, 1899 (as amended in State of U. P.), called the Act.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the parties join in making statement that facts of each case need not be referred and in all the cases only one question of law (as noted above) arises for adjudication by this Court. In the above circumstances, it is not insisted by them to file counter and rejoinder-affidavit in each case. None raised objection on all these cases being heard together and decided finally by a common judgment on the basis of the record (as it stands ).

( 3 ) WE shall, therefore, primarily refer to the facts of the case of M/s. Strong Construction v. State of U. P. which is treated as leading case to appreciate the issue in hand which this Court is called upon to adjudicate in the above cases. .

( 4 ) PETITIONER/s, known as Government contractors, filed tender/s to take and execute contract work under scheme, called pmgsy. It is not disputed that the competent authority accepted tender filed by the petitioner/s.

( 5 ) THE Executive Engineer, Temporary division (PMGSY), PWD, Kaushembi, allahabad vide impugned order dated 33-8-2004/annexure 1 to the writ petition demanded stamp duty on the security deposits in the form of FDR/nsc/bank guarantees as per terms and conditions of contract agreement treating it as mortgage deed which is chargeable under Art. 40 of Schedule i-B of the Act. Being aggrieved petitioner/s have filed above writ petition under Art. 226, constitution of India and claimed following reliefs- "" (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 23-8-2004 (Annexure 1 to this writ petition)passed by respondent No. 4, (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to charge stamp duty on security amount on the basis of Art. 57, Schedule i-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, (c) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Honble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, (d) Award the costs of this writ petition. "

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel, representing the petitioners, submit that money security, given under a particular term/condition of an agreement to ensure performance of contract, by no stretch of imagination can be treated as mortgage deed; it is pure and simple security deed under Art. 57 (b) of schedule 1-B of the Act; facts of the cases before the Court are identical and that the legal question raised and required to be decided in these cases has already been answered by this Court in the case of Tajveer singh v. State of U. P. , 1997 (2) All WC 1029 (DB ).

( 7 ) RELEVANT extract of the aforesaid judgment reads :-"the respondents invited tenders for constructing drains, culvert etc. in response to which petitioners submitted their tenders. As per terms of the tender, tenderers, whose tenders are accepted have to deposit two percent, of the contract amount as earnest money and ten per cent, of the contract amount as security deposit, which were liable to be refunded if the work is completed within the prescribed time. However, if the tenderers fail to complete the work within the specified time, the said amount was liable to be forfeited, petitioners-tenders were accepted. An intimation to that effect was given to them by a letter dated 24-6-1994. By the same letter the petitioners were required to make security deposit and also to supply non-judicial stamps f