IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1886 of 2009(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE DISTICT REGISTRAR, THRISSUR,(DISTRICT COLLECTOR,THRISSUR). 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR LAND REVENUE, LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, THRISSUR. 4. THRISSUR DISTRICT PADDY MARKETING AND PROCESSING SOCIETY LTD., NO.R.293, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2009, ALW.WP(c).No.1887/09 & ANOR. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).Nos.1886, 1887 & 1888 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT In these writ petitions Ext.P5 orders issued by the 1st respondent are under challenge. Petitioner in these writ petitions is a Central Co-operative Society. They have purchased certain immovable properties from the 4th respondent in these writ petitions, which are also co- operative societies and are members of the petitioner society. 2. Sale deeds were executed and the petitioner claimed the benefit of exemption from stamp duty, on the strength of Ext.P3 notification providing for remittance of the stamp duties that are payable by the Co-operative Societies. It would appear from Ext.P5 order rejecting the claim for exemption that the first respondent referred the matter for clarification by the Land Revenue Commissioner WP(c).No.1886/09& ors. 2 and the Land Revenue Commissioner issued clarification taking the view that the petitioner is ineligible for the benefit of exemption from Stamp duty. Acting upon the clarification so given, by Ext.P5 orders the first respondent has held that the stamp duty is liable to be paid on the respective sale deeds and it is challenging these orders that this writ petition is filed. 3. Several contentions have been raised by the counsel for the petitioner, relying on Ext.P3 notification and also the judgment rendered by this court, particularly the judgment in the case reported in Kerala Co-operative Consumers Federation Ltd. V. Sub Registrar (2007(2) KLT 629). However, the Government Pleader relied on Section 40 of the Co-operative Societies Act and the Judgment of this court in O.P.No.3052/03 which was confirmed in W.A. No.1280/2004 and also the judgment in W.A. No.1689/08, pointed out that the petitioner is ineligible for remission of the stamp duty. 4. However, I do not think that in this proceedings, it is necessary to adjudicate on the rival contentions for the reason that the first respondent has rendered Ext.P5 orders entirely relying on WP(c).No.1886/09& ors. 3 the clarification issued by the 2nd respondent. Admittedly, before the clarification was issued, the 2nd respondent did not issue notice to the petitioner or given them an opportunity of hearing. In my view, before taking such a decision, the 2nd respondent ought to have given the petitioner an opportunity to make their representations, in which event, the petitioner could have referred to the concerned sale deeds and other documents and canvassed for the position that they are entitled to the benefit of exemption vide Ext.P3 notification. Admittedly this has not been done. 5. Therefore, I set aside Ext.P5 and direct the 2nd respondent to give notice to the petitioner and to decide afresh on the claim for remission of stamp duty in respect of Ext.P2 sale deeds in these writ petitions. Orders as above shall be passed with notice to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/