Judgment :- A.H. Joshi, J. 1. Order-sheets reveal that on 21st September, 2007, this Court had put the parties on notice that this petition would be taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission-hearing. Notice of this petition was not issued to the Respondent No.5. The Respondent No.5 has, however, filed appearance voluntarily and also filed Affidavit-in-Reply, way back in October, 2007. He has participated in the hearing from time to time. In so far as the affidavits of other respondents are concerned, those are on record. Hence Rule. Respective Advocates waive service, and Rule is taken up for final hearing forthwith by consent. 2. Heard learned Adv. Mr. P.C. Madkholkar for the petitioner, learned Senior Advocate Mr. S.P. Dharmadhikari appearing as a Special Public Prosecutor for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and learned Adv. Mr. C.S. Kaptan for respondent no.5. 3. Petitioner is praying for the reliefs in two prayer clauses, however, they seem to be four reliefs in all, which are as follows:- “A) [1] ...by writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ the telephonic message at Annexure-E by the Secretary of the Chief Minister be declared illegal, null and void and it amounts to abuse of due process of law. .... [2] ...the letter/order of the Collector dated 5.6.2006 at Annexure-C by which registration of crime is prohibited, be declared to be null and void and the same be quashed and set aside saddling cost of Rs.1 Lakh each on the Collector as well as the Government.” “B) [1] By appropriate writ, order or direction direct the respondents no. 1 and 2 to reconstitute the SIT constituted by Superintendent of Police Shri Krushna Prakash with the other officers, PI Ane, PI Deorao Tiwase and PI P.K. Daberao and direct them to investigate the matter in accordance with law in regard to the complaints which are filed against Mr. Gokulchand Sananda vide Annexure-A and subsequent complaints which are already gone to the number 50. .... [2] ....a further direction to issue a general direction to all concerned Ministers and Collector and Commissioner not to interfere in the matter and let the law take its own course.” [Prayers are divided and have been marked [1] and [2] for identification as well as emphasis while quoting]. [Quoted from page no. 8 of the Writ Petition paper-book]. 4. [2] ....a further direction to issue a general direction to all concerned Ministers and Collector and Commissioner not to interfere in the matter and let the law take its own course.” [Prayers are divided and have been marked [1] and [2] for identification as well as emphasis while quoting]. [Quoted from page no. 8 of the Writ Petition paper-book]. 4. Facts, in brief, as narrated in the petition, are as follows:- [a] Petitioner seems to represent the cause of indebted farmers in and around Khamgaon Taluka of Buldana district, who are victims of usurious money lending transactions by respondent no.5 and his family members or associates. [b] Petitioner has filed a detailed complaint dated 23rd May, 2006 which is Annexure-A to the petition, and demanded that the entire transactions by members of family of the respondent no.5 be investigated. [c] Petitioner came to know that his complaint would not be investigated, as prohibitory directions have been received from the Hon'ble Chief Minister which are communicated to the Superintendent of Police, Buldana, through:- (i) a telephonic message from Mr. Padwal, Personal Secretary to Hon'ble Chief Minister, an entry in Station Diary for this direction is taken; and; (ii) a letter issued under the signature of the Collector, Buldana, copy whereof is at Annexure-C dated 6th May, 2006 to the petition. 5. Through this letter [Annex.C], issued by Collector, Buldana, under orders of Hon'ble Chief Minister, the Collector, Buldana, has directed the Superintendent of Police not to take cognizance of any complaint received against family members of Dilipkumar Sananda, unless such complaint is considered by a District-level Committee appointed for controlling the illegal money lending and without taking opinion of the District Govt. Pleader, since false and frivolous complaints are being made against members of family of Dilipkumar Sananda, the Member of Legislative Assembly. 6. It is seenfrom various Farad orders passed in present petition by this Court from time to time that, this Court had directed that the progress of investigation of various complaints made by the farmers against the family members and associates of the Respondent No.5 shall be reported from time to time, and, therefore, various affidavits have been filed. 7. 6. It is seenfrom various Farad orders passed in present petition by this Court from time to time that, this Court had directed that the progress of investigation of various complaints made by the farmers against the family members and associates of the Respondent No.5 shall be reported from time to time, and, therefore, various affidavits have been filed. 7. The affidavit filed by Superintendent of Police, Buldana, on 23rd April, 2007 which is pages 66 to 68 of paper-book accompanies a chart, wherein it is shown that:- [a] in relation to seven complaints/FIRs registered against the members Sananda family, charge-sheets are filed, and [b] various other complaints are disposed of either being matters of civil nature or being withdrawn or settled, beyond limitation, being non-cognizable etc. It is then urged that the petition has become infructuous and that no further orders are necessary. 8. During the hearing, learned Adv. for the petitioner Mr. P.C. Madkholkar has given emphasis to the Prayers (A) [1] and [2] to (B) [2] as quoted in foregoing Paragraph no.3. 9. It is then argued that due to orders passed by this Court, though some investigation has been conducted, in fact, ample protection was already given by police to members of Sananda Family due to the protection sought from Hon'ble Chief Minister. Due to this protection, latitude and helping hand, these accused were able to take protection by applying for anticipatory bail in the matters where cognizance of offences was taken. This has also resulted in causing delay in taking cognizance and in permitting the accused either to pressurize the complainants, or otherwise influence them either to get the complaints disposed of or illegally closed. 10. Petitioner has urged for:- [i] a fresh investigation of various offences, though complaints are closed as compromised, disposed of being civil matters etc; [ii] The Govt. Resolution dated 19th October, 2005 [Annex.I to the first affidavit filed for and on behalf of respondent no.4] be struck down or read down to prevent its abuse, as in present case. 11. In the midst of hearing, we had called upon the learned Special Public Prosecutor - Senior Adv. Mr. Resolution dated 19th October, 2005 [Annex.I to the first affidavit filed for and on behalf of respondent no.4] be struck down or read down to prevent its abuse, as in present case. 11. In the midst of hearing, we had called upon the learned Special Public Prosecutor - Senior Adv. Mr. Subodh Dharmadhikari to state as to what is the stand of the State on the action taken by the Collector in the form of Annexure-C, informing that no offence should be registered in relation to family members of respondent no.5, until the procedure prescribed therein was followed. 12. Learned Senior Adv. Mr. Dharmadhikari informed the Court in reply that he did not readily have the instructions to state whether the State would like to withdraw the said communication. He, however, expressed that the course of action adopted in the present case could not be a right course of action, though, according to learned Sr. Adv. Mr. Dharmadhikari, to avoid indiscreet use of Criminal Law and in order to prevent harassment of honest and innocent citizens against false complaints, some control and restraints, as are resorted in case at hand, to prevent hasty cognizance may be necessary. 13. Mr. Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Advocate, however, wanted time to secure instructions to be able to go on record on any of these concessions, in order that he makes a statement only after instructions. We find that when the matter was ordered to be listed for final disposal at admission stage, the State ought to have taken adequate measures and care for taking due and sufficient instructions. We, therefore, do not propose to adjourn the hearing any further. 14. We would now deal with different grievances. Telephonic directions 15. In so far as the telephonic message [Annex.E to the petition] is concerned, of late, it is sought to be disputed that any such communication was at all made. 16. It is alleged that the statement of Mr. Padwal has been recorded by Police Sub-Inspector, Buldana, on 14th February, 2008, in which Mr. Padwal denies to have made any call to Police Station and communicated the oral direction of Hon'ble Chief Minister. 17. It is seen that since the investigation on this point was inordinately delayed, it was but natural that the telephone record prior to six months from the date of demand was not available with Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited. 18. Padwal denies to have made any call to Police Station and communicated the oral direction of Hon'ble Chief Minister. 17. It is seen that since the investigation on this point was inordinately delayed, it was but natural that the telephone record prior to six months from the date of demand was not available with Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited. 18. We see that this fact of the matter does not need a discussion, since the direction referred to in said telephonic message has come on record at page 35 of paper-book as an authentic document with the affidavit of the Respondent no.4, sworn by Tahsildar. Said page 35 has not been marked as an Annexure to the affidavit, however, it bears signature of said Shri Ukanda Sakru Rathod, the Tahsildar, certifying it to be a true copy. 19. We have noreason to disbelieve that when Tahsildar has signed a document as a true copy, it was meant to be a true copy. 20. Moreover, the directions of Hon'ble Chief Minister, contained in said telephonic message are rather proved by the communication dated 5th June, 2006, of which a typed copy is at page 19 of the petition [Annexure 'C'], while its photo copy certified to be a true copy is on record at page 36 as unmarked Annexure to the affidavit of the Tahsildar, which is signed as a True Copy by Shri Ukhanda Sakru Rathod, the Tahsildar. 21. In these premises, it would be a matter of futile exercise to waste any further energy on the point of Annex.E. It will have to be taken that such communication was made by or at the behest of someone who was interested in making such communication, and this Court holds that said telephonic communication was made at the behest of the Respondent No.5. Legality of Direction of Hon'ble Chief Minister 22. As we see, the attempt is made by the State to fit Annexure-C into the authority as available through the Govt. Resolution dated 19th October, 2005. 23. We have perused Section 13A of the Bombay Money Lenders Act. Legality of Direction of Hon'ble Chief Minister 22. As we see, the attempt is made by the State to fit Annexure-C into the authority as available through the Govt. Resolution dated 19th October, 2005. 23. We have perused Section 13A of the Bombay Money Lenders Act. We quote it for ready reference as below:- “13A.Power of authorized officer to require production of records or documents For the purpose of verifying, whether the business of money-lending is carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Act any Registrar, Assistant Registrar or any other officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf may require any money-lender or any person in respect of whom the Registrar, Assistant Registrar or the officer so authorized has reason to believe that he is carrying on the business of money-lending in the State to produce any record or documents in his possession which in his opinion is relevant for the purpose and thereupon such money-lender or person shall produce such record or documents. The Registrar, Assistant Registrar or Officer, so authorized may after reasonable notice at any reasonable time enter and search without warrant any premises where he believes such record or documents to be and inspect such record or document and may ask any question necessary for interpreting or verifying such record.” 24. The power under Section 13A of the said Act, as referred to above, is an additional equipment and a tool provided in the hands of the Executives to effectively deprecate the vices sought to be remedied by the Bombay Money Lenders Act. 25. At the most, the Govt. Resolution dated 19th October, 2005 can be construed to be a Consultative Committee who would guide and work to further and advance the object of deprecating the usurious money lending. This Committee cannot be used to dilute the powers of police or the authorities under the Bombay Money Lenders Act. 26. We, therefore, record our stern disapproval of the approach of State Govt., in placing reliance on Govt. Resolution dated 19th October, 2005 to justify its action taken through Annexure-C . letter dated 5th June, 2006 . the communication of Hon'ble Chief Minister's directives by Collector, Buldana. 27. 26. We, therefore, record our stern disapproval of the approach of State Govt., in placing reliance on Govt. Resolution dated 19th October, 2005 to justify its action taken through Annexure-C . letter dated 5th June, 2006 . the communication of Hon'ble Chief Minister's directives by Collector, Buldana. 27. We wishfully hoped that the respondent no.5 would come with a plea that being harassed by police due to false and frivolous complaints made against him with political motive etc., and as the higher level police officers did not pay any attention to his complaints, he was constrained to approach the Hon'ble Chief Minister, and that in such higher superior Executive power, Hon'ble Chief Minister has examined the matter. No plea is coming forward, suggesting such semblance. Copy of complaint submitted by respondent no.5 to Hon'ble Chief Minister leading to communication [Annexure 'C'] is not placed before us. 28. Respondent no.5 is happy and content with making certain allegations and no substantive plea of aforesaid type or akin thereto is advanced. All that he has said in his affidavit reads as follows:-.......................................... ........... The respondent disputes correctness thereof. It is submitted at the relevant time the elections to various local authorities were to be held in the District, hence a planned vilification campaign was undertaken by the opposition leaders with the support of some police officers these people wanted to persecute the respondent's son by handling false and baseless allegations against his father to tarnish his political prospects and career. And raised false doubts in respect of investigation and claimed investigation independently without any bias. ................ [Quoted from page 141 of the paper-book of Writ Petition]. 29. The manner in which the petition was initially opposed and later investigation was conducted makes it clear that there was a meeting at the behest of the respondent no.5 with the Hon'ble Chief Minister, where Hon'ble Chief Minister gave oral directions to the Collector, Buldana, and he has then issued a letter dated 5th June, 2006. 30. The letter dated 5th June, 2006 and telephonic message based thereon recorded in the Station Diary, copy whereof is at Annexure-E page 21, and at page 35 [Annexure to the affidavit of Tahsildar] are, thus, the exhibits of gross abuse of power by the concerned. We, therefore, hold that these two communications [Annexures-C and E] deserve to be struck down. 31. We, therefore, hold that these two communications [Annexures-C and E] deserve to be struck down. 31. Considering limited prayers contained in the petition, we find that the purpose of the petition is substantially served, yet the issue cannot be considered to have reached foreclosure. As to complaints against the Respondent No.5 32. We see from the chart annexed to the affidavit referred to above that in the complaint filed by Mr. Sarangdhar Chavan, i.e., the petitioner, a charge-sheet has been filed for offences under Sections 341, 342, 363, 392, 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, and read with Section 32B of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946, and the criminal case is in progress. 33. Petitioner's grievance is that there is a rampant money lending and it needs to be controlled in the interest of poor farmers of Vidarbha. 34. We are of the view that whenever a grievance against illegal lending comes to the notice of the respondents, punctual action be taken. 35. Whenever any individual complainant against Respondent No.5 comes forward and furnishes a grievance that he has either not withdrawn the complaint and that it was withdrawn due to duress etc., such grievance should always be open for consideration, and should be considered. 36. We have no room of doubt in our mind that had the petition not been filed, no investigation would have at all been done. We, at the same time, feel that even after filing of petition, since adequate protection was already given to the respondent no.5 and his family members, he had sufficient opportunity of getting the offences reported against him screened, compounded etc. One does not know how many such instances of illegal money lending do exist. We only express that the superior power of the Executive is not brought to the abuse in the manner it has been done in the present case. 37. Coming to the point of the compensatory costs prayed for by the petitioner, in all fairness, learned Adv. Mr. Madkholkar, who argued that the petitioner is representing cause as if a Public Interest Litigation. Mr. Madkholkar, however, urges that in order to avoid such recurrence, there must be some chastisement to the respondents. 38. We, therefore, award token cost of Rs.25,000 [rupees twenty-five thousand only], and direct that the said amount be paid by the State Govt., within six weeks from today. Mr. Madkholkar, however, urges that in order to avoid such recurrence, there must be some chastisement to the respondents. 38. We, therefore, award token cost of Rs.25,000 [rupees twenty-five thousand only], and direct that the said amount be paid by the State Govt., within six weeks from today. No extension of time should be applied for. Cost, when deposited, be paid to Advocate for the petitioner. The Judgment be circulated by the Chief Secretary of the State to all Hon'ble Ministers and their Personal Secretaries, Secretaries of different Departments of the Government, in order that what is deprecated does not recur. 39. With above observations, Rule is made absolute in terms of Paras 30 and 38 above. The disposal of petition would not come in the way of officers to investigate it.