Dismissed

K. Abdul Hameed, v. the District Collector

Madras HC13 Aug 2013WP(MD)/7510/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the license of a non-banking finance company and the auctioneer, alleging exorbitant interest and illegal auction. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the claims were based on disputed questions of fact involving loan amounts and interest, rendering the writ action inadvisable and abortive against revenue authorities.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

K. Abdul Hameed, Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED :13 .08.2013

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.7510 of 2011

¶7

K.Abdul Hameed ... Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

The District Collecgtor Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶10

The Revenue Divisional Officer Dindigul.

¶11

The Tahsildar Dindigul Taluk, Dindigul. 4. Muthoot Fin. Corp., Ltd., Rep. by its Manager 239, Thirumalai Prabhu Complex, North Cross Street, Dindigul.

¶12

M.Narayanan Chettiyar Dindigul District Auctioneer 239, Thirumalai Prabhu Complex, North Cross Street, Dindigul. ... Respondents

¶13

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus for the relief as sought for in the writ petition.

¶14

For Petitioner ... Mr.D.Sadiq Raja For Respondents ... Mr.B.Pugalendhi, Spl.G.P. for R1 to R3 Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh for R4

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct enquiry on the basis of the representation of the petitioner, dated 07.03.2011 and thereby cancel the license granted in favour of Muthoot Finance Corporation Ltd., Dindigul as well as auctioneer license of the fifth respondent. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

¶18

The petitioner is a businessman doing coir business at Dindigul and availed 13 loans in the month of December 2009 by pledging 2200 grams of gold for a sum of Rs.27,72,300/- from Muthoot Finance Corporation Ltd., having its Branch at No.239, Thirumalai prabhu complex, North Cross Street, Dindigul. According to the petitioner, Muthoot Finance Corporation, the fourth respondent has levied exorbitant interest by giving false assurance to the petitioner. The petitioner has stated that the fourth respondent has not disclosed the amount of interest to be paid towards principal, however, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, auction sale notice was issued on 27.01.2011, followed by paper publication in Dinamalar news paper on 07.02.2011. As per the notice, it was informed that the fifth respondent has been appointed as auctioneer and that the auction would be conducted at 10 a.m on 23.02.2011. The petitioner has further stated that he filed Interlocutory Application seeking interim injunction and the District Munsif Court, Dindigul, by its order, dated 22.02.2011 was pleased to grant interim injunction in all the cases.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner approached the respondents 4 and 5 and requested to stop the auction sale, however, there was no proper response. The relief sought for in the writ petition is directing the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct an enquiry on the basis of the representation submitted by the petitioner, dated 07.03.2011 and thereby cancel the licence issued in favour of the respondents 4 and 5.

¶20

In the counter, the fourth respondent has stated that the writ petition itself is not legally sustainable. According to him, the fourth respondent is a Nob-banking company, registered with the Reserve Bank of India and carrying on its business in strict adherence to the Rules, Guidelines and Regulations framed by the Reserve Bank of India. The fourth respondent is not coming under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Pawn Brokers Act, 1943. The fourth respondent has also furnished the details of 13 jewel loans and the total principal amount received by the petitioner and the total amount stated is at Rs.27,72,300/- by pledging 2020 grams of gold jewels.

¶21

According to the respondents, the petitioner had not paid the loan amount and no exorbitant amount was charged by the fourth respondent, however, the petitioner has come forward with the writ petition, suppressing the material facts. Admittedly, the petitioner had obtained loan, to a total sum of Rs.27,72,300/-. The petitioner has stated that he pledged 2200 grams of gold with the fourth respondent, whereas the fourth respondent has stated that the petitioner had pledged only 2020 grams of gold. The averments made in the petition by the petitioner and the counter filed by the fourth respondent would show that the claim made by the writ petitioner is based on disputed question of fact, which cannot be decided by a writ Court. Based on the auction notice, issued by respondents 3 and 4, the petitioner cannot seek an order against the District Collector, Dindigul and the Revenue Divisional Officer, who are arrayed as respondents 2 and 3 to cancel the license issued in favour of the respondents 4 and 5.

¶22

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

¶24

Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1

¶25

to 3 submitted that no such license was issued by the Revenue authorities in favour of the respondents 4 and 5, as alleged by the writ petitioner, hence, the writ petition is not legally maintainable.

¶26

Had there been exorbitant interest demanded by the respondents 4

¶27

and 5 or any illegal auction sale, the petitioner should approach only the appropriate forum. When the writ petition is based on disputed question of facts, approaching this Court and seeking direction against the respondents 1 to 3 could not be legally maintainable and the same could be construed as an abuse of law. Hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.

¶29

Tsvn

¶30

Sd/Assistant Registrar[Writs] /True copy/

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

¶33

The District Collector Dindigul District, Dindigul. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer Dindigul.

¶34

The Tahsildar Dindigul Taluk, Dindigul. +1cc to Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, Advocate SR.No.40584.

¶35

Order in W.P.(MD).No.7510 of 2011 Dated:13.08.2013

¶36

3P/5C RPB 09.10.2013

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K. Abdul Hameed, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Abdul Hameed, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Susila Vs R.K.Kumar

Balakrishnan Vs R.Janaki

D. Rajaguruvan, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

K.Anbukkarasi, Vs the Secretary , Tamil Nadu -

Janab T. Jaheer Hussain, Vs the Director

Kuppauru, Vs the District Collector