Case Note & Summary
The judgment provided is from the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, in Writ Petition No. 6581 of 2022, decided by a single judge. The dispute involved two sale deeds executed on 13 November 2009 by respondent no.5 in favour of the petitioner, transferring lands admeasuring 80R each in Gut No.135/4 for total consideration of Rs.6,00,000. The parties differed on nature of transaction: the petitioner treated it as sale, while respondent no.5 claimed it was mortgage by conditional sale securing a loan of Rs.6,00,000 advanced by the petitioner as an unauthorized money lender. Respondent no.5 made a representation to the Minister for Agriculture and Marketing on 3 April 2013 alleging moneylending activities. Meanwhile, respondent no.5 had filed Special Civil Suit No.20/2012 before the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangamner for reconveyance and declaration; that suit was dismissed on 30 October 2015, with a finding that the transaction was sale and not mortgage by conditional sale. Separately, proceedings under the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 were initiated against the petitioner. After search and enquiry, the Sub Registrar's report dated 10 August 2017 opined possibility of moneylending. By order dated 14 June 2018, the District Registrar (Money Lending) declared the sale deeds void under Section 18(2) of the Act and restored ownership of the lands to respondent no.5. The petitioner's appeal to the Divisional Joint Registrar was rejected on 30 March 2022. The petitioner challenged these orders in writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution, arguing that authorities under the Act could not pass an order contrary to the Civil Court decree, and that they were influenced by the Minister's directives. Respondents raised preliminary objection of alternate remedy of revision under Section 9 of the Act, contending the petition should be dismissed for non-availment of that remedy. The court framed issue: whether an authority under the Act of 2014 can pass an order contrary to a Civil Court decree. It also considered maintainability in light of the alternate remedy. It referred to Apex Court decisions in Radha Krishan Industries and Maharashtra Chess Assn., which set out principles that alternate remedy is not an absolute bar and exceptions include violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, and challenge to vires. The court noted the petitioner's contention that contradictory findings and glaring illegalities justified direct writ jurisdiction. The provided text, however, ends before the court's final decision on the preliminary objection and merits. Therefore, the final holding and directions are not stated in the excerpt.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternate Remedy - Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 227; Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, Section 9 - The High Court considered whether the writ petition should be entertained despite availability of revision under Section 9. It referred to Apex Court decisions in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Maharashtra Chess Assn. v. Union of India, which lay down that alternate remedy is not an absolute bar and exceptions include violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, and challenge to vires. The petitioner contended that glaring illegalities and contradictory findings of Civil Court and authorities justified direct writ jurisdiction. (Paras 12-16). No final decision in provided text. B) Money Lending Regulation - Power to Declare Sale Deeds Void - Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, Section 18(2) - The issue was whether an authority under the Act could pass an order contrary to a Civil Court decree. The Civil Court in Special Civil Suit No.20/2012 dismissed the suit on 30.10.2015 holding that transaction was sale and not mortgage by conditional sale, whereas the District Registrar on 14.06.2018 declared the sale deeds void and restored ownership to respondent no.5. The petitioner contended the authorities ignored the Civil Court decree; the respondents supported the orders on merits. (Paras 2-11). No final decision in provided text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether an authority exercising powers under the provisions of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 can pass an order contrary to a decree passed by a Civil Court; and whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the alternate remedy of revision under Section 9 of the Act.
Law Points
- Power under Article 226 of Constitution can be exercised for any purpose
- High Court has discretion not to entertain writ petition if effective alternate remedy exists
- exceptions include violation of natural justice
- lack of jurisdiction
- challenge to vires
- alternate remedy does not divest High Court of its powers
- Section 9 of Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act
- 2014 provides revisionary power to Registrar General
- authority under the Act cannot pass order contrary to Civil Court decree if decree remains in force
