Bombay High Court

SANTOSH GANPATRAO BANKAR AND ANOTHERversusTHE DIVISIONAL JOINT REGISTRAR CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AURANGABAD AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The Court held that the petitioners must pursue a revision under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, and therefore the writ petitions are disposed.

Summary

The petitioners, Santosh Ganpatrao Bankar and another, challenged an order dated 20 November 2017 passed by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co‑Operative Societies, Aurangabad in Appeal No. 12/2017. The High Court observed that the petitioners have an alternative and equally effective remedy under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ petitions, granting the petitioners liberty to file a revision before the Registrar of Money Lending, Pune, and directing that the interim order remain in force until the revisional authority decides. The Court also noted that any delay condonation would be considered by the revisional authority if the revision is filed within eight weeks, and the revisional authority must decide the matter within six months. All pending civil applications, if any, were also disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition is maintainable when a specific statutory revision remedy under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 is available.
Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition or direct the petitioners to pursue the statutory revision.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 — s. 9

Subjects

writ petition
revision
Maharashtra Money Lending Regulation Act
Section 9
interim order
condonation of delay
co‑operative societies
jurisdiction

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:13604
                                                                               40.odt


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          40 WRIT PETITION NO. 8426 OF 2018

                          Santosh Ganpatrao Bankar And Another
                                          VERSUS
          The Divisional Joint Registrar Co-Operative Societies Aurangabad And
                                           Others
                                            …..
          Mr. Suryawanshi Kamlakar J., Advocate for the Petitioners
          Mrs. D. S. Jape, AGP for the Respondents - State
                                            …..
                          WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 8411 OF 2018

                                       CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                       DATE       : 24.03.2026


          PER COURT :

          1.    Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.


          2.    The petitioners are assailing the order dated 20.11.2017 passed
          by the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Aurangabad in
          Appeal No. 12/2017.


          3.    After going through the order, I find that the petitioners have an
          alternate and equally efficacious remedy of filing a revision under
          Section 9 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014.


          4.    In view thereof, the writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to
          the petitioners to challenge the impugned order by filing a revision
          under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act,
          2014 before the Registrar of Money Lending, Pune.


                                              1
                                                                      40.odt


5.      Needless to mention, the time spent in prosecuting the present
petitions shall be taken into consideration by the revisional authority
while deciding an application for condonation of delay, if the revision
is filed within a period of eight weeks from today.


6.      The interim order granted by this Court shall continue till the
revisional authority decides the matter on its own merits.


7.      It is made clear that this Court has not continued the interim
order on merits, but only because it was already in operation since
2018. The revisional authority shall decide the revision, if filed, within
a period of six months thereafter.


8.      Pending civil applications, if any, stand disposed of.




                                       [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]



Sameer/March-2026




                                       2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…