919-WP-1466-2020.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 1466 OF 2020

. Sou. Shalini W/o Dinkar Fattepure

Age: 50 years, Occ. Agri.,

R/o: Narangwadi, Tq. Omarga,

Dist. Osmanabad.

… Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Maharashtra

Through its Secretary,

Co-operative Department,

Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2. The Divisional Joint Registrar

Co-operative Society, Latur,

Division Latur.

3. The District Deputy Registrar

Co-operative Societies,

Osmanabad.

4. The Assistant Registrar

Co-operative Societies, Omarga,

Dist. Osmanabad.

5. Mahadu S/o Rama Lohar

Age: 75 years, Occu. Agri.,

R/o: Narangwadi, Tq. Omarga,

District: Osmanabad.

… Respondents

…

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Ganesh J. Kore

AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4: Mrs. V. S. Choudhari

Advocate for Respondent No.5: Mr. S. N. Patne

…

1/6

919-WP-1466-2020.odt

CORAM

: N. B. SURYAWANSHI, J.

DATE

: 23^rd November, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with

the consent of the respective parties.

2.

This petition challenges proceedings lodged by Respondent

No.5 under Section 18 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation)

Act, 2014 (For short “the said Act”).

3.

By a registered sale deed dated 01-08-2001, Respondent No.5

sold his land admeasuring 1 Hectare 20 R from Gut No.105/4, situated at

village Narangwadi, Taluka Omerga, District Osmanabad to the Petitioner.

Accordingly, mutation entry No.2000 was certified in favour of the

Petitioner.

4.

On 14-10-2010, the Respondent No.5 filed application before

Respondent No.4 contending that the transaction between him and the

Petitioner was a money lending transaction. An inquiry was conducted

into the application and after recording statements of the witnesses and

considering the documents placed on record, the Respondent No.4 by

order dated 30-12-2010 held that the transaction between Respondent

No.5 and the Petitioner was not a money lending transaction and

2/6

919-WP-1466-2020.odt

therefore, the proceedings under Section 13-B of the Bombay Money

Lenders Act, 1946 can not be initiated. The Respondent No.5 did not

challenge the said decision and the said decision has become final.

5.

On 30-04-2014, the Respondent No.5 filed an application

under Section 18 of the said Act before Respondent No.3, making the

same allegations as were made in the earlier proceedings that the

transaction between him and the Petitioner was a money lending

transaction.

The Petitioner appeared in the proceedings before the

Respondent No.3 and raised the point of maintainability of the

proceedings on the ground of limitation. The same was not considered

and the Respondent No.3 proceeded with the inquiry initiated on the

basis of application filed by Respondent No.5. Hence, the present petition

seeking quashing of the proceedings before Respondent No.3 on two

grounds; first on the ground of limitation and second ground is that

earlier complaint filed by the Respondent No.5, on the same grounds was

rejected on merits.

The Respondent No.5 has also filed R.C.S.

No.176/2014 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Omarga

seeking re-conveyance of the suit property.

6.

Heard the learned advocate for the Petitioner, learned

Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4/State and

learned advocate for Respondent No.5.

3/6

919-WP-1466-2020.odt

7.

The learned advocate for the Petitioner submits that when the

earlier complaint making similar allegations was rejected on merits, the

second complaint on the same allegations is not maintainable. He further

submits that the second complaint is beyond limitation as prescribed

under Section 18 of the said Act and therefore, the proceedings are liable

to be quashed and set aside. In support of his submissions, he relied on

the decision of this Court in Writ Petition 3898/2017.

8.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the other

hand, oppose