Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 662 (BOM)

Rameshchandra Ramchandra Golecha v. Dy. Registrar (Money Lenders) & Dy. Registrar Cooperative Societies

2015-03-05

A.S.CHANDURKAR

body2015
ORAL JUDGMENT: Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties. These Writ Petitions lay challenge to certificates issued by the respondent no.1Deputy Director (Money lending) and Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Taluka Akola addressed to respondent no.2complainant wherein it is observed that the respondent no.2 had been exonerated from repaying amount of loan said to be borrowed from the petitioner. In view of orders dated 23.12.2013 passed by the Division Bench, these matters were directed to be decided by Single Judge. 2. Facts in Writ Petition No. 6817 of 2013 are being referred to: On 24.08.2010 the respondent no. 1 issued summons to the petitioners calling upon them to remain present for an inquiry that was being conducted under powers conferred by provisions of Section 13(A) of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 (for short the said Act). It was stated in the notice that a complaint had been received from respondent no.2 that the petitioners were indulging in illegal money lending activities. In response to said show cause notice the petitioners appeared before the respondent no.1 and raised a preliminary objection to the tenability of the complaint. It was stated that the complaint as made was barred by limitation and the respondent no. 1 had no authority to consider said complaint. On that ground rejection of said complaint was sought. The inquiry commenced before the respondent no.1 and during pendency of said inquiry aforesaid certificate dated 10.06.2013 came to be issued by the respondent no. 1. Being aggrieved by aforesaid certificate the petitioners have approached this Court challenging said certificate on various counts. 3. Shri J. B. Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were not heard before issuing the certificate in question. It was submitted that without conducting any inquiry what so ever and without deciding the preliminary objections, the aforesaid certificate came to be issued. It was submitted that by issuing said certificate the petitioners had been branded as persons indulging in illegal money lending activities. The learned counsel referred to the Roznama of the inquiry proceedings to urge that prior to hearing the petitioners and completion of said inquiry proceedings aforesaid certificate had been issued. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decisions of learned Single Judge in Ramesh s/o Daulatrao Pachghare and others Vs. The learned counsel referred to the Roznama of the inquiry proceedings to urge that prior to hearing the petitioners and completion of said inquiry proceedings aforesaid certificate had been issued. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decisions of learned Single Judge in Ramesh s/o Daulatrao Pachghare and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2006(5) Maharashtra Law Journal 15 and Shriram Driyaji Chopade Vs. State of Maharashtra Ors. 2009(2) Bom. C. R. 541 to urge that such certificate could not have been issued. It was also submitted that by virtue of aforesaid certificate the respondent no. 2 had been pressurising the petitioners to refund certain amounts as alleged to be paid. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that in so far as criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners are concerned, this Court had stayed said prosecution on the ground that sale deeds in question had been executed about 10 years prior to lodging of present complaints. 4. Smt. M. N. Hiwase, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 3 has relied upon the affidavit in reply filed on record. It is submitted that the inquiry in question is still pending and there has been no final adjudication in said proceedings. It is stated that the certificate in question had been issued after examining the records available with the office of respondent no.1. It is further stated that status of the petitioners as money lenders has not yet been decided and nor does the certificate state that the petitioners were indulging in illegal money lending activities. Reference was made to Government Resolution dated 19.12.2005 wherein a special package had been declared for six districts in Vidarbha Region and one of the aspects was in respect of suicides of farmers on account of demands being made by unauthorised money lenders. It is further submitted that in the inquiry proceedings due opportunity was being given to the petitioners and only after considering the entire record, a final decision in the matter would be taken. It was, therefore, submitted that the respondent no.1 acted within its authority and powers conferred by Section 13(A) of the said Act while issuing the certificate in question. 5. Shri U. J. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the respondent no. It was, therefore, submitted that the respondent no.1 acted within its authority and powers conferred by Section 13(A) of the said Act while issuing the certificate in question. 5. Shri U. J. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submitted that the challenge as raised to the certificate was premature in view of the fact that inquiry proceedings were pending before the respondent no.1. It was submitted that considering the nature of the Government Resolution dated 19.12.2005 it was within the jurisdiction of respondent no.1 to have issued such certificate. It was stated that nothing prejudicial to the rights of the petitioners had been observed in said certificate. It was, therefore, submitted that the challenge to said certificate itself was misconceived. 6. I have carefully considered aforesaid submissions and I have gone through the documents filed on record. The Government Resolution dated 19.12.2005 records that in view of increase in number of suicides by farmers a special package for six districts in the Vidarbha Region of the State was formulated. After considering the various factors on said issue, the aspect of money lending was also noticed. In Clause 4 of said Government Resolution it was observed that loans borrowed from unlicensed money lenders were illegal and hence it was not incumbent upon the concerned farmers to repay said loans. 7. The respondent no.2 had made a complaint to the respondent no. 1 in relation to certain illegal money lending activities of the petitioners. It was stated that the respondent no.2 had executed a sale deed of his lands but the same was towards security of the amounts advanced. Reference was also made to a police complaint filed by respondent no.2 . Respondent no.1 being authorised by provisions of Section 13(A) of the said Act, therefore initiated an inquiry into the matter. A show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioners calling upon them to submit all relevant documents in relation to complaint regarding illegal money lending activities. The petitioners resisted said notice and raised preliminary objections. The record indicates that on various dates the proceedings were held before the respondent no.1 and inquiry into said complaint was pending. During pendency of said proceedings the respondent no.1 issued the impugned certificate dated 10.06.2013. It is necessary to note the relevant contents of said certificate. The petitioners resisted said notice and raised preliminary objections. The record indicates that on various dates the proceedings were held before the respondent no.1 and inquiry into said complaint was pending. During pendency of said proceedings the respondent no.1 issued the impugned certificate dated 10.06.2013. It is necessary to note the relevant contents of said certificate. After referring to the complaint made by respondent no.2 it has been stated that no money lending license was found with the petitioners and hence on the basis of Government Resolution dated 19.12.2005 and Government decision dated 10.02.2006 it was declared that the respondent no.2 was exonerated from repaying any loan that was borrowed from unlicensed money lenders. The object behind issuing such certificate appears to be to relieve the borrower who has borrowed loan from an unlicensed money lender from repaying such loan. It is, therefore, clear that said certificate has been issued in the background of Government decision dated 10.02.2006. 8. In so far as the petitioners are concerned, the observations in said certificate that are made are that no money lending license was found with the petitioners. Except said observation there is nothing prejudicial that has been observed in said certificate against the petitioners. 9. On the query made by the Court with the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether petitioners were having a valid money lending license, the learned counsel submitted that they were not having any such money lending license. It is, therefore, obvious that aforesaid certificate that has been issued during pendency of the inquiry on the complaint made by the respondent no.2 does not record any incorrect fact nor is it shown to cause any prejudice what so ever to the rights of the petitioners. The defence as taken to the complaints filed by respondent no.1 is in no way affected by issuance of said certificate. It is not disputed by the respondent no.1 that the inquiry proceedings are still pending. If at all the petitioners succeed in justifying their preliminary objection and are able to satisfy the respondent no.1 in the inquiry proceedings as regards their being no merit in the complaint, appropriate orders in that regard would be passed in exercise of powers under Section 13(A) of the said Act. Merely because the impugned certificate had been issued, the same would not preclude the petitioners from justifying their defence in the inquiry proceedings. Merely because the impugned certificate had been issued, the same would not preclude the petitioners from justifying their defence in the inquiry proceedings. Hence there is substance in the submission made on behalf of the respondent no.2 that challenge to aforesaid certificate at this stage is premature in as much as nothing prejudicial to the rights of the petitioners has been adjudicated. 10. Though the learned counsel for the parties submitted that the said Act has now been repealed in view of coming into force of Maharashtra Act VIII of 2014 namely the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, it is not necessary to go into said issue at this stage in as much as the impugned certificate was issued prior to Maharashtra Act No. VIII of 2014 coming into force. Its effect and applicability can be urged before the respondent no.1 if the same is found relevant. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners relate to final adjudication in proceedings under Section 13(B) of the said Act after holding of inquiry. As observed herein above, the inquiry proceedings are still pending before respondent no.1 and hence ratio of said decisions cannot be made applicable to in the facts of the present case. 11. In view of aforesaid discussion there is no merit in the challenge to the impugned certificates as raised by the petitioners. As the inquiry proceedings are still pending, it is open for the petitioners to justify their stand in defence in said proceedings. 12. In view of aforesaid discussion the following order is passed: The challenge to the impugned certificates at the behest of the petitioners is without any merit. Writ Petitions are therefore dismissed. It is clarified that the inquiry proceedings pending before the respondent no.1 shall be decided on its own merits without being influenced by any observations made in this order. Respective rights and contentions of all the parties in that regard are kept open. Rule stands discharged with no order as to costs.