← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/2217/2018dismissed

Vinayak Shankarrao Kubade v. Divisional Registrar, Money Lending And Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-Op. Societies, Amravati And

2022-04-13Hon'Ble Shri Justice Rohit Baban Deo2 pages

1 wp2217.18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 2217 OF 2018 ( Vinayak Shankarrao Kubade ..vs.. Divisional Registrar, Money Lending & Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Amravati and others ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S.S. Joshi, Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N.R. Rode, AGP for respondents 1 and 2, Mr. D.I. Jain, Counsel for respondent 3.

CORAM : ROHIT B. DEO , J .

DATED : 13-04-2022 The petitioner is assailing the order dated 19-9-2017 rendered by the Divisional Joint Registrar in exercise of appellate power under Section 18(4) of the Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 (Act).

2.

The petitioner has not availed the statutory remedy of revision, which is available under Section 9 of the Act.

3.

This Court has consistently declined to exercise writ jurisdiction if the statutory remedy of revision is not availed. Illustrative reference may be made to the decision dated 02-12-2019 in Writ Petition 2538/2017 (Ajitsingh s/o Narendrasingh Chhatwal v. Sardar Sukhbirsingh Diwansingh Chandok and others) and the decision dated 28-8-2018 in Writ Petition 5362/2017 (Vishwanath Marotrao Ganjre v. Divisional Joint

2 wp2217.18 Registrar, Co-operative Society, Amravati and others). 4.

Relegating the petitioner to the statutory remedy of revision, this petition is dismissed.

5.

I note that there is an interim order in favour of the petitioner, which is operating since last four years. In this view of the matter, the interim order shall continue to operate for further period of forty-five days to enable the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of revision.

JUDGE adgokar MANOHARRAO ADGOKAR