Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Rameshchandra Ramchandra Golecha and Vikramchandra Ramchandra Golecha, were holders of money lending licences issued under the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014. Their licences were cancelled by the Deputy Registrar (Money Lenders) & Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Akola. Aggrieved, they filed appeals before the same authority, which were dismissed for non-prosecution due to the petitioners' absence. The petitioners then filed four writ petitions (WP Nos. 6817, 6818, 6819, 6820 of 2013) before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging both the cancellation and the dismissal of appeals. The court noted that the appellate authority should have decided the appeals on merits rather than dismissing them for non-prosecution. However, the petitioners failed to provide any explanation for their absence or show sufficient cause. Consequently, the court found no ground to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution and dismissed all four writ petitions. The judgment was delivered by a single judge on 13 March 2015.
Headnote
A) Money Lending - Licence Cancellation - Appeal Dismissal for Non-Prosecution - Petitioners challenged cancellation of money lending licences and dismissal of appeals for non-prosecution - Court held that the appellate authority ought to have decided the appeals on merits rather than dismissing them for non-prosecution - However, since the petitioners failed to show sufficient cause for their absence, the writ petitions were dismissed - Held that the remedy of appeal is a statutory right and should not be lightly forfeited (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Deputy Registrar (Money Lenders) was justified in cancelling the money lending licences of the petitioners and whether the appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeals for non-prosecution.
Final Decision
All four writ petitions are dismissed.
Law Points
- Duty of appellate authority to decide appeal on merits
- Effect of non-prosecution of appeal
- Scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226
