JUDGMENT Hari Lal Agrawal, J. 1. By this writ application the petitioners challenge the order of the Additional Collector, Purnea, dated the 28th July, 1978, Annexure 6, passed under the provisions of section 23 of the Bihar Money Lenders Act, 1974, (in short, 'the Act') referring the dispute to the Conciliation Board on being notified in the official gazette. 2. Before I proceed to state the facts in brier, I may indicate the point of challenge of this order. This order has been challenged on the ground of denial of relationship of the debtor and creditor between the parties itself which according to the argument must be subsisting before the dispute can be referred to the Conciliation Board. 3. Undisputedly respondent No.5 executed a simple mortgage bond on 24.9.1968 in favour of the plaintiffs-petitioners to secure a sum or Rs. 15,000/-. For recovery of the said loan, Title Suit No. 15 of 1976 was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Purnea, claiming a decree for Rs. 24 895/- besides pendente tile and future interest In the written statement filed by respondent No.5 in the suit, he took the plea that the transaction in question was not a that transaction as the document was executed" to ward off all dangers from the side of any one which may have covetous eye on it" as the relationship between the parties was very close and cordial. The mortgage bond was executed without any consideration and thus the transaction itself was termed as 'fake' to remain as a paper transaction. 4. It is in view of this stand of the defendant-respondent No. 5, i.e., complete denial of the transaction of loan, that an argument has been advanced that there could be no reference to the Conciliation Board. 5. Section 23 of the Act, empowers the State Government or its delegatee by notification in the official gazette to refer any dispute whether any suit or proceeding be or be not pending in a court with regard to the whole or part of the subject of such dispute to a Conciliation Board to be constituted by the State Government for each district --- for the purpose of bringing about an amicable settlement of such dispute and if no such settlement can be brought about, for deciding the same in such manner as it appears to the Board to be reasonable. An explanation has been appended to section 23 defining the expression 'dispute' in the following words:- “ ‘Dispute’ for the purpose of this chapter shall mean a dispute of difference regarding loan or loans the amount of which singly or in aggregate exceeds one hundred rupees (excluding interest) between a debtor and his money-lender.” 6. It was argued with some emphasis that the dispute or difference must be between a debtor and his money lender and in a case where the debtor disputes the transaction itself, as in the present case, then he ceases to be a debtor and the alleged creditor, a money lender, and therefore, the condition precedent for referring the dispute becomes non est and the power to make a reference under section 23 of the Act, could not be exercised. 7. The argument of Mr. Sinha, although attractive, is far fetched and cannot be accepted. It is common knowledge that in almost all the cases the usual plea of a debtor is a denial of the transaction either on the basis of a hand-note or a registered bond. If the argument is accepted then practically no case will be covered by section 23 of the Act, and the intention of the Lagislature that the parties should be directed to a Conciliation Board instead of litigation in a. court of law or before any other authority will be frustrated. In that case only those cases will be amanable to the jurisdiction of the Board under section 23 where the debtor admits the loan and sets op a plea of either payment or incorrectness of the amount of the loan or something like that. On a question put by Court Mr. Sinha ventured to argue that whenever any such denial of the present nature is made by a defendant, then the entire suit would be tried outside the purview of the Act, itself. It is a very bold submission and must be rejected. 8. The issue relating to the denial by a debtor that he had not borrowed the money does not terminate the jurisdiction of the court, for the purpose of trial of the suit and that issue has to be tried by the court. This kind of dispute will in my view come within the category of a dispute between the parties regarding the loan itself. This kind of dispute will in my view come within the category of a dispute between the parties regarding the loan itself. Under the very scheme of the Conciliation proceeding it has been provided under section 27 of the Act, that in case of the failure of the Conciliation Board in bringing about an amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties, it has to make an enquiry into the same, receive such evidence as it considers necessary and decide the amount, if any, payable to money lender. Under the very nature of enquiry, which is enjoined upon the Board, the Board in a case could come to the conclusion that no amount was payable. For example, under sub-section (2) of section 27 Act, it is provided that in case it is decided that nothing is due from the debtor, the Board may award costs, if any, to the debtor. 9. In my considered opinion, therefore, the explanation to section 23 of the Act, does not indicate, much less mean that there must be admitted existence of the relationship of debtor and creditor (money lender) between the parties so as to refer any dispute of difference regarding the loan. Putting such a construction would amount to defeating the very purpose and intention of the legislation. Obviously, the Intention of the legislation is to give advantage to the weaker section of the society and in case the construesion as propounded by the learned counsel for the petitioner is given effect to, it would Act, in derogation of their interest and they would be subjected to a protracted court trial. 10. The writ application, therefore, has got no substance and it must fail. It is, accordingly, dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs. 11. Since, however, sufficient time has, elapsed since the earlier Conciliation Board was constitued, I feel that it is advisable that a fresh Board should he constituted. Let a fresh Board be constituted accordingly as prescribed under the Act. Ram Chandra Prasad, Sinha, J. I agree. Application dismissed.