Authority May Inquire Into Transactions Within Fifteen Years to Curb Illegal Money Lending

The Petitioners challenged orders passed by the Registrar General of Money Lenders (Pune), the Divisional Joint Registrar (Aurangabad), and the District Deputy Registrar.

Respondent No. 1 in each petition filed complaints under Section 18 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, alleging they obtained loans at 3% interest from Petitioner No. 1 in 2009.

They claimed that although "nominal sale deeds" were executed as security, the Petitioners refused to reconvey the land despite repayment.

An inspection on 20.08.2014 led to the seizure of multiple sale deeds, bank passbooks, cheques, and deposit slips belonging to the Petitioners.

The authorities concluded that the Petitioners were engaged in illegal money-lending without a valid license and ordered the return of the properties.

1. Whether the authorities failed to follow the mandatory procedure contemplated under Section 15 of the Act during the inquiry.

2. Whether the disputed transactions were genuine sales or money-lending transactions disguised as sale deeds.

Section 2(3) of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, defines the business of money-lending; Section 4 mandates a license for such business.

Section 16 empowers authorized officers to search premises and require production of records for verification.

Section 18 grants the District Deputy Registrar the power to inquire into transactions occurring within fifteen years and order the return of immovable property if it was intended as security for a loan.

Section 15 vests the authorities with the powers of a Civil Court regarding the attendance of persons, production of documents, and proof by affidavits.

The Court noted that the 2014 Act was social legislation intended to prevent farmer harassment and suicides caused by predatory lending.

It rejected the Petitioners' argument regarding Section 15, holding that because notices were issued, petitioners appeared, and submissions were filed, the procedural requirements were satisfied.

The Court observed that during the Section 16 inspection, a significant volume of incriminating documents (seized sale deeds, passbooks, and notebooks) was found in the Petitioners' possession.

The Court held that the authorities correctly exercised their power under Section 18 to look behind the "sale deeds" to identify the true nature of the security-based debt transactions.

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions, upheld the orders of the lower authorities, discharged the Rule, and disposed of all pending civil applications.