1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 4845 OF 1997 The Pachora People’s Co-operative Bank Ltd., at Pachora, through Gulabsingh Sardarsingh Patil Age : 50 Yrs., Occ. Service - Recovery Officer, R/o : State Bank Colony, Pachora, Tq. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Collector, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 3. The Jt. Dist. Registrar and Stamps Collector, Collector Office, Jalgaon. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. A.D.Rajput, Advocate holding for Mr. R.N.Dhorde, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.B.Patil, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. 2 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 21/6/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER – S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the Ordinance No. 12 of 1996 dated 4/9/1996 to the extent of Schedule I Item No. 6 (ii) levying the stamp duty at 2 % relating to the execution of the instruments of pawn, pledge, hypothecation, etc. as ultra virus and violative of Article 14, 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that during the period when the said Ordinance was in force, various instruments were executed and the stamp duty was paid @ 2 % in pursuance to the said Ordinance. 3. According to the petitioner, subsequently, the rate as notified in the said Ordinance came to be revised and the same were reduced w.e.f. 6/3/1997. The petitioner claims refund of the amount of the stamp duty, which is paid as per the earlier Ordinance. 4. The stamp duty is part of taxing statute. There is no requirement of an element of ‘ quid pro quo stricto senso ’ . The rate at which the stamp duty has to be fixed, is a prerogative of the Legislature. 3 The decision levying the duty at a particularcan not be the subject matter of challenge. More over the same is not arbitrory. It is not the case of the petitioner that stamp duty fixed is beyond the legislative power. 5. More over, the stamp duty is paid by the customers. There is nothing on record to show that the stamp duty has been paid by the petitioner and not the customers of the petitioner. As the stamp duty is paid by the customers, who are not before the Court, in such circumstances, the order of refund would amount to unjust enrichment, which would not be permissible. 6. In light of above, we do not find any merit in the petition. The petition being sans merit and as such is dismissed. Rule is discharged. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] [ B.R. GAVAI ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 4845.97