Mohd. Rizwan S/O Haji Ahmadbhai Fajlani And 2 Others v. The Divisional Joint Registrar Of Co-Oprative Societies And Money Lending, Amravati And 5 Others

1 wp 941.2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 941 OF 2018 (Mohd. Rizwan S/o Haji Ahmadbhai Fajlani and ors. ..vs.. The Divisional Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies and Money Lending, 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. P. P. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. N.R. Rode, AGP for respondents 1 to 3 Mr. N. G. Moharir, Advocate for respondent 4 CORAM : ROHIT B. DEO , J .

DATED : 02-05-2022 This petition challenges an order passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies and Money Lending, Amravati in exercise of 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

2 wp 941.2018 (Vishwanath Marotrao Ganjre v. Divisional Joint 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 wasnik YUVRAJ WASNIK