IMPORTANT POINT
The jurisdiction of the Competent Authority under the Maharashtra Money Lending Act is strictly limited to cases where there is clear evidence of illegal money lending, which must be established in the complaints filed.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of the parties, as appearing.

2. Respondent Nos. 5 to 10 are served, affidavit of service to that effect as directed by this Court by previous order dtd. 18/1/2023, is placed on record. Despite service these Respondents are not represented.

Accordingly as observed in para 3 of the Order dtd. 18/1/2023, the parties are required to be heard.

3. The order impugned in this Petition is an order dtd. 25/3/2022 passed by the Competent Authority under Sec. 17(1) of the Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 (for short the "Money Lending Act"). This petition was earlier filed as a Criminal Writ Petition, however, subsequently by an order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it was permitted to be converted into a Civil Writ Petition.

4. Facts:- Respondent Nos. 7 to 10 approached the Competent Authority under the Money Lending Act, by their complaints which are similarly worded (pages 58 to 61 of the proceeding), which were to the effect that the four vehicles subject matter of the complaints are standing in the name of such Respondents in the records of the Regional Transport Office (R.T.O.). It was contended that the registration certificate of the vehicles were handed over to the Petitioner as a security to avail borrowings/finance from the Petitioner, hence, the vehicles were in the custody of the Petitioner. It was prayed that the vehicles be returned to the respective Respondents. These were the complaints by Shri. Yogesh Parmeshwar Randive/Respondent No.7, Shri. Akil Mahamul Mujawar/Respondent No.8, Shri. Somnath Dinkar Rokade/Respondent No.9 & Shri. Samadhan Gokul Thorat/Respondent No.10.

5. It is seen that the vehicle, which Shri. Yogesh Parmeshwar Randive/Respondent No.7 was claiming was financed by Hinduja Finance Limited. The vehicle claimed by Shri. Somnath Dinkar Rokade/Respondent No.9 was financed by Mahindra & Mahindra financial company. The other two vehicles claimed by Shri. Akil Mahamul Mujawar/Respondent No.8 and Shri. Samadhan Gokul Thorat/Respondent No.10 were not hypotheticated to any private financer. The complaints of these respondents which are identically worded, contend that the said vehicles were seized by the Mohol Police Station, (Solapur Rural), in relation to the First Information Report as lodged by the said Respondent (FIR No.0047 dtd. 8/1/2022).

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has drawn the Courts attention to the complaints filed by the said respondents before the Competent Authority namely the District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, who is also an authority under the provisions of Money Lending Act. The petitioner has contended that as clearly seen from the record, the case of such respondents (complainants) was per se defective in law, for the reason that the complaints as filed did not satisfy the basic requirements/ingredients necessary for invoking the provisions of Sec. 17(1) of the Money Lending Act. It is contended that the complaints were completely silent on any money being lent by the Petitioner to the said Respondents, as also there was no reference to any amounts being lent. It is submitted that in fact such vehicles were purchased by the Petitioner from the said respondents/complainants, as the Petitioner is a dealer in purchase and sale of old vehicles. He submits that one of the vehicles 'Ford Endeavour', as claimed by Shri. Akil Mahamul Mujawar/Respondent No.8, stood transferred in the name of petitioner's wife in the record of the Regional Transport Office (R.T.O.).

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has drawn the Courts attention to the impugned order to submit that the impugned order has not taken into consideration the specific case of the Petitioner that the competent authority had no jurisdiction to pass the order as impugned. He submits that there are no reasons as set out in the impugned order, although the case of the Petitioner has been