IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 W.A.No. 1689 of 2008 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.15447/2008 DATED 26/05/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ THE KATTAPPANA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE SUB REGISTRAR, KATTAPPANA SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, KATTAPPANA.P.O. 2. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, IDUKKI. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSIUM JUNCTION, TRIVANDRUM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATION (B) DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.A.G.ANEETHA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1689 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 28th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. Appellant is a Co-operative Bank ('the Bank' for short). It has purchased certain property in auction sale for realisation of the debts due to it, since there was no bidders for the property. (2) The sale was effected after complying with the procedural formalities and as per Ext.P2 resolution. The Sub Registrar, of Kattappana has registered the sale deed on 4.5.2005 and after such registration, has impounded the document and has forwarded the same to the District Registrar, Idukki. (3) The District Registrar has passed an order holding that the appellant Bank is liable to remit the stamp duty at 6% on the sale consideration and a penalty of Rs.200/-. (4) In the writ petition filed, the petitioner had contended that as per Ext.P5 Government order, the Government have exempted Co- operative societies registered in the State from remitting stamp duty for instructions executed for and on behalf of the Co-operative society relating to business thereof and decisions or awards or orders of the Registrar or the Arbitrator under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. W.A.No.1689 of 2008 (5) Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the second respondent, petitioner had approached the Commissioner of Land Revenue who in turn had directed the petitioner to produce all the documents before the second respondent and had further directed the District Registrar, Idukki to take a fresh decision in the matter. (6) After such remand, the District registrar has passed yet another order (Ext.P7). Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. (7) The learned Single Judge mainly relying upon the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Thodupuzha House Construction Co-operative Society Ltd. No.E-331, Thodupuzha v. Sub Registrar, Karikode, Thodupuzha in W.A.No.1280 of 2004 decided on 30th August, 2005, has rejected the writ petition. (8) Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before us in this writ appeal. (9) Sri.V.G.Arun, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court requires reconsideration and, therefore submits that the appeal may be admitted and a decision may be taken, whether the decision rendered by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1280 of 2004 requires reconsideration. W.A.No.1689 of 2008 (10) The Division Bench of this Court in Thodupuzha House Construction Co-operative Society Ltd.'s case [W.A.No.1280 of 2004] has observed as under: “Their claim in the writ petition was based on Ext.P7 notification issued by the State Government granting exemption from payment of stamp duty in situations detailed in Ext.P7, which details the circumstances under which stamp duty remission can be granted in respect of Co-operative Societies in the State. For our purpose, clause 1(a) of Ext.P7 is the relevant provision which reads as under: “1(a) The whole stamp duty which under the Kerala Stamp Act 1959 (Act 17 of 1959) instruments executed by or on behalf of any registered Co-operative Society on instruments executed by 'any officer of such society or member in his own capacity or/and in the capacity of a Guardian of minor' and relating to the business thereof and decisions, awards or orders of the Registrar or the Arbitrators under the said Co-operative Societies Act.” Going by the said clause, remission of stamp duty is applicable only when the particular instrument is executed by any officer of such society and decisions or awards or orders of the Registrar or the Arbitrators under the Act. This would essentially that only in respect of documents executed by any officer of the Society or member of the Society, the said clause is attracted. Further we also note that under sub clause (2) of Ext.P7, it provides thus: W.A.No.1689 of 2008 “xx xx xx xx The concession granted cannot be extended to a document excited (sic) by a non-member in favour of a co-operative Society or Land Mortgage Bank, even if prosecution thereof is made bay (sic) the President or any other bearer of such Society or Bank” Under this clause also, a concession as per Ext.P7 notification cannot be granted in respect of a document executed by a non-member in a co-operative society. Admittedly, in this case, Ext.P1 document was executed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who is a non-member as coming within the said clause. Moreover, the Society has purchased the property as any third person who may bid in the auction and, therefore, it cannot be said that such purchase was relating to the business of the Society so as to bring Ext.P1 within the ambit of Ext.P7 notification. In view of the above provisions and especially in view of the fact that notifications granting exemption in respect of duties and taxes have to be construed strictly, we have no doubt, in our mind, that no remission is allowable in respect of the stamp duty payable on Ext.P1 document.”. (11) In our opinion, a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court is binding on the other Division Bench of this Court. Unless exceptional circumstances are pleaded, it is not proper for this Court either to differ from the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court or W.A.No.1689 of 2008 to take a different view in the matter. (11) In that view of the matter, while confirming the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, we reject the writ appeal. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns/dk