ORDER Dixit, C. J.- 1. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner, who is a registered moneylender under the Madhya Pradesh Moneylenders Act, 1934, and carries on business in money lending in Raigarh district questions the legality of the action of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jashpur, in seizing his 'account-books and locking up his business premises. He prays for a direction to the opponent for the return of his accounts-books and for restoration of possession of his business premises. 2. In the return filed by the opponents it has been admitted that the account books of the petitioner were seized by the Sub-Divisional Officer. It, is, however, denied that the petitioner's business premises were locked up and sealed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. In the return the opponents have expressed their willingness to return the seized account-books. The justification given for the seizure of the account-books is to the effect that the petitioner who was doing extensive moneylending business with backward tribal people, was charging exorbitant interest and molesting them for the recovery of the principal and interest amount. It has been stated in the return : "The entire act of the seizure of the account-books was done keeping in view the larger interest of society, and the particular interest of the poor, backward adivasis of the local area; whose economic condition in this year of drought is pitiable." 3. This petition must be allowed. The action of the Sub-Divisional Officer in seizing the petitioner's account-books is indefensible and the justification sought to be given in the return for it is bathetic. Neither the Madhya Pradesh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937, nor the Madhya Pradesh Moneylenders Act, 1934, gives any power to any authority to seize the moneylender's account-books, on any ground. If the petitioner is charging exorbitant interent contrary to the provisions of the Moneylenders Act, 1934, then it is a matter between him and his debtors and the debtors can avail themselves of the remedy provided by the Moneylenders Act, 1934. If the applicant has molested or abetted the molestation of any debtor for the recovery of any debt owed by him, then the authority should have proceeded against him under section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937. If the applicant has molested or abetted the molestation of any debtor for the recovery of any debt owed by him, then the authority should have proceeded against him under section 4 of the Madhya Pradesh Protection of Debtors Act, 1937. The object of the respondent to "keep in view the larger interest of society, and the particular interest of the poor, backward Adivasis of the local area" is no doubt laudable; but in carrying out that object the respondents have to adhere to law and not act contrary to it. There can scarcely be anything more arbitrary and capricious in spirit, method and illegality than the action taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer in seizing the account-books of the petitioner. 4. It has no doubt been denied that the petitioner's business premises were locked and sealed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Learned Government Advocate, however, stated before us during the course of arguments that the petitioner's business premises were locked up by his debtors. Even if it be taken that the business premises were locked up and sealed by debtors, the respondents cannot absolve themselves of any responsibility by saying that the premises were locked up not by them but by the petitioner's debtors. If the debtors locked up the petitioner's business premises, then that action was plainly illegal and it was the duty of the respondents to afford every protection to the petitioner against the high-handed action of the debtors. 5. For these reasons, this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to return forthwith to the petitioner the account-books seized from him. The respondents shall also see that the petitioner's business premises are restored to him legally at an early date. In the circumstances of the case, we think it fit to direct the opponents to pay to the petitioner the costs of this application. Counsel's fee is fixed at Rs. 200. The outstanding amount of the security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner.