The central legal point established in the judgment is that the powers under the Bombay Money-Lenders Act, 1946 are administrative in nature and do not preclude proceedings before the civil court.

1) Heard extensively. Rule was issued on 20th June, 2007. By these applications, the applicants have questioned lodging of F.I.R. vide Cr.Nos.35/2006; 36/2006; and 34/2006, all dated 28.12.2006 before Taluka police station, Nandurbar. Shri Ratan Sajan Patil had executed sale-deed dated 17.6.2004 in favour of the applicant. Pursuant thereto, mutation entries were effected being entry Nos.475, 476, 477 and 479. The respondent No.5 belatedly moved the Respondent No.3, making allegation that the applicant has indulged in money-lending and that the sale-deed, executed by his grandfather, was, in fact, mortgage and not an outright sale. The purpose of sale-deed was, the same would be a conveyance in favour of grand-father of Respondent no.5.

2) Respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice to the applicant, asking to reply as to why action under the provisions of The Bombay Money-Lenders Act, 1946 (for short, the Act), should not be initiated. The applicant has denied of any transaction in the form of and nature alleged by Respondent no.5. Respondent no.3, after reply, did not hold any inquiry with the applicant. However, surruptiously, inquiry report dated 11.10.2006 of Respondent no.3 was forwarded to the applicant with another show-cause notice dated 13.10.2006. It was a composite inquiry conducted in all the three complaint applications. Thereafter, Respondent no.3 conveyed of framing a charge against the applicant under the said Act and he held that the applicant has indulged in unauthorized money-lending activities. This view of Respondent no.3 was questioned before the learned Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nasik. It was informed that there was no enquiry carried by Respondent no.3. The Respondent no.3, in spite of pending such representation before Respondent no.2, did not wait for its result and ultimately lodged F.I.R. on 28.12.2006 with police, alleged the offences under Sections 32B and 33(1) of the said Act. The conduct of Respondent no.3 was considered by Respondent no.2 and intervened in the matter directed Departmental Enquiry against Respondent no.3 for such personal indulges. However, no fruitful event was the outcome. The opinion of additional Public Prosecutor of Nandurbar dated 10.11.2006 though illustrated of filing a complaint against the applicant, however, by letter dated 16.12.2006, opinion was withdrawn as the matter was sub-judice.

3) Learned Counsel rightly said, there was no authority vested in Respondent no.3 to cancel the registered document of conveyance. It was not within the province of provisions of the said Act and it was alleged to be an excessive exercise of powers by Respondent no.3.

4) Section 13A of the said Act deals as under:

“[13A Power of authorized officer to require production of records or document,

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 moneylender [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 moneylending in the State] to produce any record or document in his possession which in his opinion is relevant for the purpose and thereupon such moneylender [or person] shall produce such record or document. 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.]”

Section 13B(1) reads thus:

"13B(1) If upon the inspection of records and documents made under section 13A, the inspecting officer is satisfied that the money-lender is in possession of property pledged to him by a debto