MAHENDRA GOYANKA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHORT facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner's father was a money-lender of Shahdol district for more than 30 years. After his death, petitioner continued with the business of money-lending. He obtained licence for money-lending by getting himself registered under the provisions of M. P. Money Lenders Act, 1934. Licence was issued in favour of the petitioner on 17-3-1998 for a period of two years by Tahsildar, Tahsil Kotma, district Shahdol as revealed in Annx. P/2. It was extended from time to time, lastly on 29-3-2006 for a period from 30-10-2004 to 29-10-2006 as revealed on the back side of Annx. P/2. Last extension/renewal was granted by the Sub divisional Officer, District Anuppur. It is pertinent to mention here that on formation of District Anuppur, Tahsil Kotma was made a part of it.

(2.) SUB Divisional Officer Kotma, issued a notice dated 20-11-2006 (Annx. P/3) to the petitioner requiring him to provide certain informations and documents with respect to his act of money-lending. On behalf of the petitioner, time was sought vide application dated 23-11-2006 on the ground that he was out of station and stay until his arrival was sought of the proceedings under the provisions of M. P. Money Lenders Act. Learned Sub Divisional Officer, Kotma, refused to grant time and passed the impugned order on 23-11-2006 holding that the licence renewed from 30-10-2004 to 29-10-2006 is void on account of having been issued in respect of scheduled notified area of Kotma Tahsil. Accordingly, licence renewed for the aforesaid period has been cancelled.

(3.) CASE of the petitioner is that the licence was renewed duly for the period from 30-10-2004 to 29-10-2006 and the Collector Anuppur, has acted in a mala fide manner due to political influence of his rivals. It is further stated in the petition that a sum of Rs. 5 lacs was demanded from the petitioner as gratification and on account of denial on his part, the Collector is bent upon to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of the M. P. Rajya suraksha Adhiniyam, for externment. A letter issued by the Sub Divisional officer addressed to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, District Anuppur is placed on record as Annx. P/6, wherein, it has been mentioned that for maintaining law and order, it is necessary to extern petitioner's brother, namely, Manish Kumar under the provisions of the said Act. This apart, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kotma, has started a drive against money-lenders as revealed in Annx. P/8 and P/9. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already advanced money to various persons during the validity period of licence which may be recovered by him as of right. On the facts and grounds averred in the writ petition, following reliefs have been sought :-