MOHIT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) However, latter on, when we were about to start dictating the order, learned Counsel for the petitioners made a request that no final order be passed in this case as he has also filed another similar matter involving the same issue which is pending for hearing. The request cannot be acceded to for the reasons that we have heard this matter finally and that whatever decision would come here, it may also govern the issue involved in another petition, provided the questions of law and facts are similar. In case the facts and circumstances are different, the other matter would have to heard separately anyway. Therefore, the request is rejected.

(3.) Petitioners are registered money lenders and carry on their business of money lending within the territorial limits for which the money lending licences are granted to them under the provisions of the Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 (hereinafter called "the Act, 2014", for short). All these petitions involve a common question of law pertaining to the interpretation to be given to the provisions made under Section 12 of the Act, 2014. This section provides for levy of an inspection fee, which is leviable under Section 5, at the rate of one per cent of the maximum capital utilized by money lenders during the period of licence sought to be renewed or Rs. 50,000/-, whichever is less. There is an explanation provided to this section which clarifies the meaning of the expression "maximum capital".