1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5777 OF 2009 Prashant s/o Prakash Pawar, R/o-Hanuman Galli, Mandana, Tq-Shahada, Dist-Nandurbar. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Co-operative Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, Maharashtra State. 2) Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nashik Division, Nashik, 3) District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Nandurbar, Dist-Nandurbar, 4) Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Shahada, Dist-Nandurbar, 5) Gopichand s/o Dangal Wagh, R/o- At Post- Mandana, Tq-Shahada, Dist-Nandurbar. 6) Gautamchand s/o Tikamchand Jain, R/o- At Post- Mandana, Tq-Shahada, Dist-Nandurbar. ...RESPONDENTS. 2 ... Mr.B.V. Thombre Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.N.B. Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. ... CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 15TH OCTOBER, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. By this Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 25th November, 2008 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies at Shahada, Tq-Shahada, Dist- Nandurbar rejecting Petitioner's application /complaint dated 21st August, 2008 for holding enquiry under the Bombay Money Lenders Act. 2. The Petitioner filed complaint dated 21st August, 2008 before Respondent No.4 alleging that Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 advanced loan of Rs.50,000/- to the Petitioner in the year 1998 for his sister's marriage. By fraud Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 got executed the sale 3 deed dated 6th May, 1998 in respect of his property bearing Gut No.462 admeasuring 1 Acre 13 Gunthas and Gut No. 463 admeasuring 4 Acres and 12 Gunthas. It is the further case of the Petitioner that though the Petitioner has repaid the entire amount of loan on 16th May, 1999 to Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, they failed to return the said land to the Petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Respondent No.4 - Assistant Registrar without holding any enquiry as contemplated under the Bombay Money Lenders Act, passed order dated 25th November, 2008 rejecting Petitioner's application / complaint dated 21st August, 2008 and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. 4. Respondent No.4 in his order dated 25th November, 2008 specifically stated that he followed the due process of law i.e. holding enquiry through regional officer before passing the impugned order. It is specifically stated in the order dated 25th November, 2008 that the Petitioner executed the registered sale deed dated 6th May, 1998 in favour of Respondent No.5 in 4 respect of land Gut No.462 admeasuring 1 Acre 13 Gunthas and land Gut No.463 admeasuring 4 Acres and 12 Gunthas and thereafter Respondent No.5 sold said land in the year 2003 i.e. after five years to Respondent No.6. Respondent No.4 observed in his order dated 25th November, 2008 that Respondent No.5 paid a sum of Rs. 1,21,000/- to the Petitioner at the time of executing the sale deed dated 6th May, 1998. Though the learned counsel for the Petitioner stated that the Petitioner repaid entire amount of loan on 16th May, 1999 to Respondent No.5, he failed to produce any documentary evidence to show the payment of the said amount. Not only that the Petitioner in his complaint dated 21st August, 2008, failed to explain how he paid the sum of Rs.85,000/- to Respondent No.5 and/or Respondent No.6. 5. Learned A.G.P. for Respondents pointed out that though the Petitioner sold the suit property to Respondent No.5 by registered sale deed dated 6th May, 1998 but he filed the complaint on 21st August, 2008 i.e. after 10 years. Learned A.G.P. further pointed out that Respondent No.4 held detailed enquiry and came to the conclusion that there is no substance in the 5 Petitioner's complaint dated 21st August, 2008. 6. It is clear that though the Petitioner executed registered sale deed dated 6th May, 1998, he filed the complaint after 10 years i.e. on 21st August, 2008. Not only that, neither in his complaint nor in the present Writ Petition the Petitioner explained how he repaid the loan amount of Rs.85,000/- on 16th May, 1999. There is not a single document on record to show that he repaid the alleged loan amount on 16th May, 1999. From the facts and circumstances of the present case and documents produced by the Petitioner, it is clear that the Petitioner sold his land to Respondent No.5 by registered sale deed dated 6th May, 1998. Therefore, Respondent No.4 rightly held by his order dated 25th November, 2008 that there is no money lending transaction between the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Considering these facts, Writ Petition is summarily dismissed. [K.K. TATED, J.] asb/OCT09/wp5777.09