JUDGMENT: ( F.I. REBELLO, J.) 1. The petitioner - a registered body has filed this petition on behalf of its members and financiers who also are its members and who carry on business of financing under Hire Purchase Agreement for motor vehicles. The locus of the petitioner to file the petition has not been disputed including by respondent No. 7, who has filed the affidavit. The contention of the petitioner is that they have approached this court on account of harassment which was being caused by Jalgaon police to some of the financiers - members of the federation and because of the financiers writing a letter to the President of the federation to take the lead in giving protection to the financiers. 2. Shortly, the case, according to the petitioner is that, there are as many as six financiers, who were its members and who were carrying on business of financing at Jalgaon under hire purchase basis of motor vehicles. One Kirtansingh s/o Harisingh Chabada filed a complaint on 07-02-1994, which was registered by the City Police a Crime No. 13/1994 for the offence punishable under Section 468, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the complainant against the financiers - members was that the financiers are not possessing the money lending licence and still they are carrying on the business of money lending. According to the petitioner, in the complaint, it was stated that those who are in need of money have been given a loan and exorbitant amounts are being recovered. Based on registration of the complaint, the financiers were arrested, handcuffed and paraded in Jalgaon City. Similar are the incidents as occurred in other parts including at Malegaon in Nashik District. 3. According to the petitioner, in view of such incidents, which is likely to affect their business, the petitioners have approached this court, as there are several points which required to be considered including their rights under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder. Also whether the provisions of Bombay Money Lenders Act can be made applicable to the financiers who deal in giving motor vehicles on hire purchase basis and several other questions as set out in the petition. Our attention is invited to the various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Also whether the provisions of Bombay Money Lenders Act can be made applicable to the financiers who deal in giving motor vehicles on hire purchase basis and several other questions as set out in the petition. Our attention is invited to the various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is set out that the financier is the legal owner and the Registering Authority is required to intimate the financier about each and every transaction relating to the vehicle by following the procedure under the Rules. Accordingly, the petitioner has sought the following relief: By issuing an appropriate writ or direction or order in the nature of appropriate writ, it be declared that, the Bombay Money Lender’s Act, 1946 (The Bombay Act) is not applicable to the financiers, who are carrying on the business in financing under hire purchase agreement or otherwise under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. . There are some other reliefs including certain directions not to register any crime at the instance of hire operator. It is not necessary to refer to other reliefs. Interim reliefs were sought. However, we do not find that any interim relief is granted by this court, pending the petition. 4. Respondent No. 7 Bipinkumar Singh has filed reply. In the reply, it is denied that any member of the federation was handcuffed and paraded in Jalgaon city. There is also denial of the other events, as set out in the petition. It is then set out that one Kirtensingh Harisingh Chabda, lodged a complaint alleging that on 08-08-1991, he had taken Rs. 30,000/- from Gautamchand Tuto Mobiles Financier, Hyderabad on interest at the rate of 5% per month till the end of 20 months with interest on initial amount of Rs. 30,000/-, total went upto Rs. 60,000/-, out of which he paid Rs. 42,000/- and Rs. 18,000/- were remained unpaid, for which he gave his Maruti Van No. MH-19-1090, against payment of Rs. 18,660/-. Maruti Van was given for six months against Rs. 11,000/-. After expiry of six months, the concerned financier did not return to the complainant his Maruti Van, as assured, hence he went to financier to demand the vehicle. The financier refused to return his vehicle and abused and threatened him and drove him away. 18,660/-. Maruti Van was given for six months against Rs. 11,000/-. After expiry of six months, the concerned financier did not return to the complainant his Maruti Van, as assured, hence he went to financier to demand the vehicle. The financier refused to return his vehicle and abused and threatened him and drove him away. A complaint was lodged which was investigated and statements of witnesses were recorded. From the statements recorded, it came on record that one Jalal Babu Shaikh wanted to purchase a old Maruti car and he purchased the vehicle bearing No. MH-19-1090 belonging to the complainant Kirtansingh Chabda for Rs.60,000/- and paid that amount to Iqbal of Malegaon, who got the possession of Car on 31-12-1993. Some procedural requirement including N.O.C. was not handed over. In the meantime, the police raided the room where Haji Iqbal was staying in the hotel. It was also revealed in the investigation that one Noor Mohammed Gulam Mohammad Shaikh Resident of Varangaon had also purchased a truck from Gautamchand Jain, financier and took a loan of Rs. 65,000/- with interest of Rs. 2% per month on Rs. 100/-. During the course of investigation, documents were seized, as also the vehicle. It is, in these circumstances, that the arrest was made. 5. The question before us is whether in these circumstances, at the instance of the petitioner - federation, whether they are entitled to the relief in the nature of declaration, which has been sought. A writ court in a challenge to legislation consider a relief in the nature of declaration. In the instant case, the petitioner - federation is seeking a declaration not against any specific person or persons but a general declaration that the financiers who are carrying on business of financing under hire purchase agreement otherwise under the various Motor Vehicles Act, to the the Money Lenders Act, 1946 is not applicable. A declaratory relief is as set out in section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Section 34 reads as under : . A declaratory relief is as set out in section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Section 34 reads as under : . "Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief: . Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so. . Explanation.-A trustee of property is a "person interested to deny" a title adverse to the title of someone who is not in existence, and for whom, if in existence, he would be a trustee. " . The petitioner in this petition has not set out as to who is the person or persons who are interested in denying the right, character or title. Merely on a police complaint being filed, it canot be said that the police officer is being its legal character, title of a person. The petitioner hence cannot claim such a declaration, as a declaration is something which a person is entitled to. It is possible that body of persons would be entitled to a declaration. It is open to the court to grant such declaration, but it must be against any person denying or interested to deny, such title, character or right. 6. What the petitioner - federation is praying is that the provision of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as "The Money Lenders Act") is not applicable to the Motor Vehicle financiers. Such a relief is sought based upon the complaint which is filed. The petitioner took cognizance of the complaint based on the complainant’s statement, that financier advanced loan against interest. It is not the case of the petitioner - federation that it or its members are entitled to advance loan against interest and that too, at huge rate. Such a relief is sought based upon the complaint which is filed. The petitioner took cognizance of the complaint based on the complainant’s statement, that financier advanced loan against interest. It is not the case of the petitioner - federation that it or its members are entitled to advance loan against interest and that too, at huge rate. It is, in these circumstances, as has been explained on behalf of respondent No. 7 that the complaint which was filed was registered, it is not possible to accept the contention on behalf of the petitioner that in such circumstances, they are entitled to a declaration on behalf of the members. Whether the financier carries on money lending business or business of giving vehicles on hire is a question of fact. This question of fact would depend upon the facts of each case. In one case, it is possible that the transaction may be of money lending transaction. In another case, it may not so. In other words, that depends as set out earlier on the facts of each case. It is, therefore, not possible for this court to grant a declaration as sought for by the petitioner - association. It must also be borne in mind that once a declaration is given, that declaration is final. If the declaration sought for by the petitioner is given, it would be a licence to the petitioner’s members to carry on money lending business under the guise of hire purchase and of finance agreement to contend that they have a declaration that action even though made amount to a criminal offence by virtue of the judgment of this court. It is true that the word ’right’ is not confined to ’proprietary rights’ as long as they are justifiable right. (62 Harvard Law Review at pp. 875-876). 7. In our opinion, therefore, where a part transaction is a money lending transaction would depend on the facts of each case. If the transaction per se is one covered by the provisions or Statute or not forbidden by law under the terms of the Contract Act, may not fall within the vice of the Money Lenders Act. In our opinion, however, on the facts of the present case, it would not possible for this court to grant a general declaration as prayed for, by the petitioner - federation. In the light of that, Rule discharged. In our opinion, however, on the facts of the present case, it would not possible for this court to grant a general declaration as prayed for, by the petitioner - federation. In the light of that, Rule discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.