( 1 ) 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 an7 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 15/02/1996 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. 00 as security amount (Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition ).

( 2 ) PETITIONER is aggrieved due to the instructions contained in the aforesaid letter dated 15/02/1996 (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 ) PETITIONER thus claimed writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to realise stamp duty from the petitioner on the deposit of security amount on the basis of order contained in letter dated 15/02/1996 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition ).

( 4 ) NO counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents as per record before the Court.

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

( 6 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the short controversy required to be decided in the present petition is that the petitioner, who is a Registered Contractor, has to pay stamp duty on the refundable amount of security under Article 57, Schedule 1-B as the deposited refundable security amount is not a mortgage. Consequently, petitioner alleges that the demand of stamp duty over and above the rate prescribed under aforesaid provision of Indian Stamp Act is illegal and cannot be legally justified.

( 7 ) LEARNED standing counsel has submitted written arguments stating that the only question; to be adjudicated in the case is - whether the security bond/deposit is chargeable with stamp duty as per Article 57 of Schedule 1-B or under Article 40 of Schedule 1-B? In the written argument learned standing counsel points out that this very question has already been referred by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 25706 of 1999, M/s. Sharma Build-tech (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The State of U. P. vide order dated 30/06/1999. It appears that this controversy had arisen in large number of writs filed in the Court and one of such cases, being Writ Petition No. 47964 of 1999, has been referred to a larger Bench.

( 8 ) PERUSAL of the referring order indicates that the Court was considering the scope and extent of Government Order dated 1/04/1999 issued by Principal Secretary, Tax and Institutional Finances, U. P. Government. The learned single Judge has referred to the decision of Tajveer Singh v. State of U. P.