SUPDA Vs. REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition challenges the order dtd. 18/3/17 passed by the learned District Assistant Registrar, Buldhana in proceedings u/s 18 (1) and (2) of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, holding that the transactions dtd. 9/8/11 and 11/11/2011 executed by the respondent no. 3 in favour of the petitioners, were money lending transactions. The appeal u/s 18 (4) as filed by the petitioners before the Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Amravati was dismissed on 11/9/17. The present petition is questioning this order.

(2.) An objection has been raised by the contesting respondent no.3 as well learned AGP contending that since revisional remedy u/s 9 of the Money Lending Act is available as a matter of right as held by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Vishwanath Marotrao Ganjre vs Divisional Joint Registrar Coopertive Society, Amravati and others in WP No.5362/17 decided on 28/8/18 (Coram-Rohit B. Deo, J) and also also in Smt. Vijaya Uttamrao Shingnapure and another vs Divisional Joint Registrar (C.S .) and others in WP No.982/17 decided on 24/10/18 which has been followed in Mukund Dinkarrao Chaudhari vs State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 5844, the present petition is not maintainable.

(3.) Mr Khapre, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that a similar provision, contained in Sec. 35 (3C) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act as it then existed in light of Sec. 155 which provided a revisional remedy has been interpreted by the learned Division Bench of this Court in Rajendra s/o Ramsukh Mishra vs State of Maharashtra and others reported in 1991 SCC OnLine Bom 285 which position has been reiterated by another Division Bench in Pandit Jemala Rathod and others vs State of Maharashtra and others , reported in 1994 Mh.L.J. 229, both of which hold that since an order passed u/s 35 (3C) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act was granted a finality, the revisional powers of the State Government u/s 155 of the same Act were not available and therefore revision was not maintainable, and a writ by.