ORDER
Abhay M. Naik, J.
1. Short facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioners’ 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 Money Lenders Act, 1934. Licence was issued in favour of the petitioner on 17-3-1998 for a period of two years by Tehsildar, Tehsil Kotma, District Shahdol as revealed in Annexure 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 Annexure 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, Tehsil Kotma was made a part of it.
2. Sub Divisional Officer, Kotma, issued a notice dated 20-11-2006 (Annexure 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 Tehsil. 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 malafide 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 Annexure 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 Annexures 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:
7. (i) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 23-11-2006 (Annexure P-5).
(ii) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have got no jurisdiction to issue 10 points Mool Mantras and restrain the petitioner from legally recovering the loan amount of about Rs. 35 lacs disbursed during validity of licence.
4. Shri Arvind Chouksey, learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that the impugned order dated 23-11-2006 having been passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Kotma, is without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be quashed. He further contended that the petitioner’s licence of money-lending was renewed for a period from 30-10-2004 to 29-10-2006 and the transactions of money-lending performed during this period are not illegal and the petitioner has a right to recover the amount advanced during the aforesaid validity period. It is further contended that declaration of scheduled area with respect to Kotma forming part of District Anuppur, has not been made at all and no such Gazette Notification has been issued. In the absence of such a declaration, licence of money-lending renewed in favour of the petitioner for the aforesaid period is valid and cannot be treated as without jurisdiction.
5. Shri Vinod Mehta, learned Govt. Advocate, submitted that the disputed renewal for the period from 30-10-2004 to 29-10-2006 was made by the Sub Divisional Officer, Kotma, District Anuppur, who had no authority in view of the amended provisions of the M.P. Money Lenders Act, 1934. Moreover, Kotma having been declared as scheduled area under Clause 1 of the Article 244 of the Constitution of India, no licence of money-lending (registration certificate) could be granted for carrying on the business of money-lending in the said area.
6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition is totally devoid of force and is liable to dismissal for the reasons contained in the succeeding paragraphs.
7. M.P. Money Lenders Act, 1934, stood amended by the M.P. Money Lenders (Amendment) Act, 2000 (Act No. 13 of 2001). This Amendment Act received the assent of the President of India on 14th April, 2001 and was published in the M.P. Gazette (Extra-ordinary), dated 20th April, 2001. Thus, the M.P. Money Lenders Act, 1934 stood amended and came into force with amendments with effect from 20-4-2001. Under Section 11-B of the Act, every person who carries on or intends to carry on the business of money-lending shall get himself registered by an application made to the Registering Authority. “Registering Authority” has been defined in Section 2 (ix) of the Act which reads as follows:
(ix) “Registering Authority” means in rural area, Jila Panchayat or Janpad Panchayat or Gram Panchayat constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (1 of 1994) for their respective Panchayat Areas and in Urban areas, Municipal Corporation constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (No. 23 of 1956) or Municipal Council or Nagar Panchayat constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (No. 37 of 1961) as the case may be, for their respective areas.
8. Kotma is a place of Municipal Council and, accordingly, Nagar Panchayat was the Registering Authority for the purposes of M.P. Money Lenders Act at the relevant time. Earlier, an application for registration as money-lender was required to be made to the Tehsildar. After the aforesaid Amendment Act, the word “Tehsildar” has been substituted by “Registering Authority” in Section 11-A of the Act. The word “Registering Authority” also finds place in various provisions substituted by virtue of the Amendment Act at all the relevant places. Thus, learned Sub Divisional Magistrate Kotma, had absolutely no power or jurisdiction to grant renewal/extension to the money-lenders’ licence vide order dated 29-3-2006 contained on the back side of Annexure P-2 and, accordingly, the order of renewal/extension is found to be without jurisdiction.
9. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged in the business of money-lending in Tehsil Kotma. Section 11-B of the Money Lenders Act, is as follows:
11-B. Registration of money-lenders and registration certificate.–(1) Every person who carries on or intends to carry on the business of money-lending shall get himself registered by an application made to the Registering Authority of that area in which he carries on or intends to carry on such business and, on such registration the Registering Authority shall grant a registration certificate to him in such form as may be prescribed:
Provided that no person being a firm or partner of a firm of money-lenders shall be so registered except upon production before the Registering Authority of a certified copy of an entry showing such person as the firm of partner, as the case maybe, made in the Register of Firms under Section 59 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (No. 9 of 1932):
Provided further that no registration certificate shall be granted to carry on the business of money-lending in the Scheduled areas referred to in Clause (1) of Article 244 of the Constitution.
(2) The application made under Sub-section (1) shall be in writing and shall specify the area in which the applicant carries on or intends to carry on the business of money-lending and such other particulars as may be prescribed.
10. Second proviso as stated hereinabove, clearly and absolutely prohibits the Registering Authority from issuing registration certificate to carry on the business of moneylending in the Scheduled areas referred to in Clause 1 of Article 244 of the Constitution of India. This Article is reproduced below for the convenience:
244. Administration of Scheduled Areas and Tribal Areas.–(1) The provisions of the Fifth Schedule shall apply to the administration and control of the Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes in any State other than the (States of Assam) [Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram].
(2) The provisions of the Sixth Schedule shall apply to the administration of the tribal areas in [the State of Assam], [Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram].
Accordingly, it was within the competence to exclude application of the provision of grant of registration certificate/money-lenders licence in Scheduled Areas.
11. In the Gazette of India (Extra-ordinary) Part II Sub-section (1) of Section 3, dated 20-2-2003, certain Scheduled areas are specified including those situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Entry at Serial No. 13 is as follows:
Pushparajgarh, Anuppur, Jathri, Kotma, Joitpur, Sohagpur and Jaisinghnagar Tehsil in Shahdol District.
At the time of issuance of the said Notification, Kotma was part of Shahdol district and, accordingly, it was specified as a Scheduled Area. After formation of District Anuppur, Kotma has been made part of it. It is not a case of the petitioner that Kotma falling earlier in District Shahdol, is different from Kotma presently falling in District Anuppur. In this view of the matter, no separate Notification is required and the Notification dated 20-2-2003 would serve the purpose for the purposes of Section 11-B of the M.P. Money Lenders Act.
12. It may further be seen that violation of the provisions of the said Act is made punishable with fine in general and violation of the provision of Sub-section (1) of Section 11-F in any Scheduled Area has been made an offence which is punishable with imprisonment which may extent to two years, or with fine which may extend to Rs. 10,000/- or both. It is held that the Notification dated 20-2-2003 would also be applicable for the purposes of other provisions of the M.P. Money Lenders Act, 1934 including Sub-section (3) of Section 11-F of the Act.
13. So far as the recovery of money advanced by the petitioner during the period of disputed licence is concerned, it is observed that the petitioner has no right to recover the money by muscle power. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that certain suits for recovery have been instituted by the petitioner. Obviously, they will be required to be dealt with in accordance with law, keeping in mind the aforesaid observations.
14. In the result, the petition is totally misconceived and is, therefore, hereby dismissed, for want of substance.
No order as to costs.