JUDGEMENT 1. RULE. Learned AGP Mr. Yagnik waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioners seek following reliefs: (a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records and proceedings pertaining to the passing of the impugned order dated 13th January, 2012 and after examining the validity, legality and propriety thereof the same be quashed. (b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing Respondent No.2 to recall and withdraw the impugned order dated 13th January, 2012. (c) that pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petition (i) this Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay operation, implementation and exemption of the impugned order dated 13th January, 2012 and (ii) the Respondents, their officers, servants, sub-ordinates and agents be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon’ble Court from in any manner taking any coercive or otherwise for recovery of the stamp duty demanded for the security of the deficit stamp duty, if any; 3. The facts in short giving rise to the present petition are such that the petitioner No.1 is Company and petitioner No.2 is authorized signatory of petitioner No.1. On 8.8.2005, the Board of Directors of petitioner No.1 decided to avail a syndicated secured term loan for an amount of Rs.4250 Crores and for which petitioner No.1 authorized Standard Chartered Bank to arrange for such a loan. The said bank accordingly arranged the syndicated term loan facility from sixteen commercial banks and one financial institution. Petitioner No.1 entered into loan agreements with each of the seventeen lenders and those seventeen lenders agreed to lend amount to petitioner No.1 and security would be created by petitioner No.1 in favour of the lenders as per the scheme envisaged by creating a security trust. On 6.7.2006, a Security Trustee Agreement was entered into between petitioner No.1, Axis Bank Ltd. as described as security trustee and the lenders. On 6.7.2006, a Security Trustee Agreement was entered into between petitioner No.1, Axis Bank Ltd. as described as security trustee and the lenders. On 26.10.2007, a deed of mortgage was executed between petitioner No.1 and Axis Bank and terms and conditions mentioned in the said agreement. Petitioner No.1 assessing the stamp duty to be payable on the said deed of mortgage creating security for the loan submitted the said document to the office of respondent No.3 for adjudication under Section 31 of the Stamp Act. Respondent No.3 adjudicated the said deed of mortgage and prescribed the duty payable by the petitioner No.1 as Rs.4,20,100/-. Petitioner No.1 paid said stamp of Rs.4,20,100/- and respondent No.3 issued certificate. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 was received notice on 16.9.2008 from respondent No.2 and demanded deficient stamp duty is Rs.67,23,300/- after adjusting Rs.4,20,100/- as stamp duty after considering the total duty of Rs.71,43,400/-. Petitioner No.1 gave reply to the respondent No.2. By letter dated 23.1.2009, respondent No.2 called upon the petitioner No.1 to submits copies of seventeen loan documents and petitioner No.1 replied by letter dated 23.1.2009. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 was given a hearing to put in submissions and thereafter, on 13.1.2012, respondent No.2 cancelled the certificate in review case under Section 53-A of the Stamp Act issued by respondent No.3. Therefore, against the said order, the petitioners have filed this petition. 4. Learned senior advocate Mr. Sanjanwala for the petitioners stated that the order impugned is passed on the basis of interpretation of provisions of the Stamp Act. He further stated that Section 3A of the Stamp Act clear that the stamp duty is payable on “instrument” and not on the transaction underlying the instrument or contained in the instrument. He relied upon definition of the “instrument” under Section 2(1) of the Act. He read Section 5 of the Stamp Act and submitted that said Section has no application in the facts of the case as the deed of mortgage is only one documents. The said section is not a charging section and the duty to be charged which is levied under Sections 3 and 3A. Learned advocate relies on the decision of Full Bench of this Court rendered in Stamp Reference No.1 of 2011 and states that the issue is covered by the said decision. Therefore, the petition is required to be considered and allowed. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Learned advocate relies on the decision of Full Bench of this Court rendered in Stamp Reference No.1 of 2011 and states that the issue is covered by the said decision. Therefore, the petition is required to be considered and allowed. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Yagnik appearing on behalf of the respondents, opposed the contentions raised by the petitioners” side and stated that the petition is not maintainable in the eye of law and therefore, same is required to be dismissed. 6. Perused the averments of the petition and considered the submissions made by the parties. I have also minutely perused the judgment passed in Stamp Reference No.1 of 2011 by the Full Bench of this Court. As per the order of the respondent No.2, the provisions of Section 5 of the Act say that the stamp duty is recoverable as per each and every separate transaction and total stamp duty amount payable for such separate matters is payable. Here Section 5 is required to be considered which is quoted as under : “5. Instruments relating to several distinct matters :-Any instrument comprising or relating to several distinct matters or distinct transactions shall be chargeable with the aggregate amount of the duties with which separate instruments, each comprising or relating to one of such matters or distinct transactions would be chargeable under this Act.” 7. In view of the above referred legal position, the State Authority cannot say that the various loans taken by the borrower from different lending banks are required to be treated as distinct matters and/or distinct transactions and the deed of mortgage is required to be charged with the aggregate amount of duty that would be payable and single deed of mortgage is construed as distinct matters/transactions. The Full Bench in the aforesaid decision discussed in detail every aspects of the Sections 5, 2(1), 54 [1-A] etc. of the Stamp Act and Section 58(a) of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the order passed by the respondent No.2 dated 13.1.2012 cancelling the certificate No.165(32)/2007 in review case under Section 53A of the Stamp Act is hereby quashed and set aside. 8. Therefore, I am in agreement with the submissions made by the learned advocate for the petitioners. In light of the decision of the Full Bench rendered in Stamp Reference No.1 of 2011 dated 3.12.2012, the petition stands allowed. (SAJ) (Petition stands allowed)