The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioners were engaged in illegal money lending activities under the Bombay Money-Lenders Act, 1946, and the report of the competent authority could not be set aside entirely.

T.V. Nalawade, J.

1. The petition is filed for following reliefs. Both the sides are heard.

"(B) Quash and set aside the complaint No.3 of 2007 and complaint No.4 of 2007 registered with Nandurbar City Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 25(1), (1-A), 32(1), 32(A) and 32(B)(B) of the Money Lending Act (Annexed at Exhibit "M" and "N" respectively).

(C) Quash and set aside the enquiry report dated 25.9.2006 of the respondent No.3 annexed at Exh."G"."

2. Petitioner No.1 is son of petitioner No.2 and they live in Hindu joint family. They own and run Jalaram Jyot Traders shop in the area of Market Committee. Respondent No.3 is authority created under the provisions of the Bombay Money-Lenders Act, 1946 (hereafter called as "the Act") to make inquiry and take action when here is contravention of the provisions of the Act.

3. One Smt. Karunaben Patil, resident of Shinde, Tahsil and District Nandurbar gave complaint to respondent No.3 on 22-2-2006. One Jagannath Fakira Patil, resident of Tikhira, Tahsil Shahada, District Nandurbar gave complaint against the petitioners on 17-6-2006. There were allegations against the petitioners that they were doing money lending business illegally. It was contended in the complaints that they had approached the petitioners in aforesaid shop of the petitioner for taking loan with the belief that petitioners were having money lending licence. It is their contention that they had taken loan from petitioners. Smt. Karunaben had taken loan of Rs.1.50 lakh and she was to pay interest at the rate of 3% per month on this loan. It is the case of Jagannath that he has taken loan of Rs. four lakh and he was to pay interest at the rate of 2% p.m. Both the complainants have contended that when they could not repay some amount and interest, by saying that security was required, their agricultural lands were got transferred by the petitioners in the names of the petitioners and their family members. It is contended that by creating false record of sale, the petitioners have grabbed the immovable property of the complainants.

4. In view of the aforesaid complaints, show cause notices were issued by the authority to the petitioners for starting inquiry under the Act. Along with the complaints, some record was produced by both the complainants. During inquiry some record was taken over from the aforesaid shop and residential place of the petitioners by the competent authority. Inquiry was held in which opportunity was given to the petitioners to have their say.

5. After making inquiry, the authority has held as follows:

(i) Petitioners were doing money lending business illegally.

(ii) Transactions made with the complainants by the petitioners were of the nature of money lending.

(iii) Compound interest at the rate not permitted by law, was charged by the petitioners.

(iv) Petitioners got executed sale deeds by representing that security was required for the loan amount and they were money lending transactions.

(v) Petitioners sold the lands which were taken by way of security to third party without informing the third party that the lands were shown to be sold under sale deed as security in money lending transactions.

(vii) The petitioners had shown the price of land as Rs.10.5 lakh when the land was sold to the third party but the petitioners had demanded Rs.21.5 lakh as principal amount and interest from the complainants. With the aforesaid observations and findings the authority had proposed to take appropriate action against the petitioners under the provisions of the Act and action was also proposed under section 13B of the Act.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are agriculturists and the transactions made in their favour were absolute sale transactions and false allegations are made against them. The learned senior counsel submitted that the lands purchased were not suitable for cultivation and so they were sold by the petitioners and this circumstance