SDO retains jurisdiction to compound offences under Section 11-G of the Money Lenders Act despite local body registration powers.

The petitioner, Sharda Bai, challenged an order dated 29.03.2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Burhanpur, in Case No. 35/B-121/2011-2012.

The SDO found that the petitioner was engaged in money lending without the requisite registration certificate under the Madhya Pradesh Money Lenders Act, 1934.

Consequently, the SDO ordered the petitioner to pay ₹5,000 in compensation to the complainant (Devka Bai), return her documents within a week, and warned of proceedings under Section 11-F if she failed to comply.

The petitioner moved the High Court via a writ petition, arguing that post-amendment (2000-2001), the SDO lacked jurisdiction as powers were vested in local bodies and that the dispute was civil in nature.

During the pendency of the petition, the private respondent (Devka Bai) expired, and no legal heirs were brought on record.

1. Whether the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) has the jurisdiction and power to take cognizance of offences and order composition/fines under Section 11-F and 11-G of the Madhya Pradesh Money Lenders Act, 1934.

2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of available alternative statutory remedies under the Act and the abatement of the case against the deceased respondent.

The court examined the Madhya Pradesh Money Lenders Act, 1934, specifically Section 11-F regarding punishments for unlicensed money lending and Section 11-G, which empowers the SDO to compose such offences.

It further referred to Section 14 of the Act and Rule 14(a) of the Madhya Bharat Moneylenders Rules, 2009, which provide for a revision before the District Judge against certain orders.

The principle of "alternative remedy" was applied, asserting that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when a statutory revisional remedy exists.

The court evaluated the respondents' contention that while the 2000 amendment transferred registration administrative tasks to Zila Panchayats under Section 11-BB, the penal powers remained judicial/quasi-judicial.

The court noted that Rule 9 and Rule 14(a) of the 2009 Rules clearly prescribe that an aggrieved party may file a revision before the District Judge.

The court found that the SDO retains the power to take cognizance of offences under Section 11-D and compose them under Section 11-G, contradicting the petitioner's claim of total lack of jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the court observed that the petitioner failed to substitute the legal heirs of the deceased respondent No. 3, leading to the abatement of the petition against her, which rendered any further consideration of the merits on that front "fruitless".

It held that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy by way of a revision before the District Judge as provided under the relevant law.

Additionally, the court ruled that the petition stood abated against respondent No. 3 due to the failure to bring heirs on record, and thus no relief could be granted.