R. B. MEHROTRA, J.

( 1 ) IN these two writ petitions filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, a common question of law and fact arises for decision as to whether the agreement executed between the petitioners and the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation can be termed as a lease or the said agreement can be treated only as a licence. Petitioners in both the cases are aggrieved by the orders of the Collectors of their respective district issuing recovery certificates for recovery of the balance of the stamp duty on the basis that the agreement executed between the petitioners and U. P. State Road Transport Corporation is a lease and the petitioners are liable to pay the stamp duty required to be paid for executing the lease deed. Petitioners challenged the recovery certificates mainly on the ground that the agreement executed between the petitioners and the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation is only a licence on which no stamp duty is required to be paid. Petitioners had executed the licence on a stamped paper of Rs. 5. 00- which is the requirement for execution of licence under the Stamp Act.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts in respect of both the aforesaid writ petitions are being

Click Here to Read the rest of this document