In the Hon’ble High Court Judicature at Bombay
Public
Interest Litigation Writ No
of 2012
Mumbai Taximen Sangathan & Others …...Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra & others …….Respondents
INDEX
|
Sr.
No.
|
|
Particulars
|
Pages
|
|
1.
|
|
Proforma
|
A-D
|
|
2.
|
|
Synopsis
|
E-
|
|
3.
|
|
Petition
|
1-
|
|
4.
|
|
Memo
of Appearance
|
|
|
5.
|
|
Memorandum of Address
|
|
|
6.
|
|
List of documents
|
|
|
|
|
Annexure
|
|
|
7.
|
ANNEXURE
P-1”
|
Copy of the Trade certificate.
|
|
|
8.
|
ANNEXURE
P-2”
|
Copy of the Resolution.
|
|
|
9.
|
ANNEXURE
P-3”
|
Copy of The Bombay Money Lending Act, 1946.
|
|
|
10.
|
ANNEXURE
P-4”
|
Copy of the EMI receipts.
|
|
|
11.
|
ANNEXURE
P-5”
|
Copy of the letter received from the RBI.
|
|
|
12.
|
ANNEXURE
P-6 (collectively)
|
Copy of the official sale receipt received
from the money lenders.
|
|
|
13.
|
ANNEXURE
P-7
|
Copy of the handed over vehicle’s agreement.
|
|
|
14.
|
ANNEXURE
P-8 (collectively)
|
Copy of the said blank agreements.
|
|
|
15.
|
ANNEXURE
P-9 (collectively)
|
Copy of the of the plain paper receipts.
|
|
|
16.
|
ANNEXURE P-10 (collectively)
|
Copy
of the EMI receipts with names of different firms.
|
|
|
17.
|
ANNEXURE
P-11 (collectively)
|
Copy of the said
notices and their reply with reference to NOCs.
|
|
|
18.
|
ANNEXURE
P-12
|
Copy of the money lender’s list.
|
|
|
19.
|
ANNEXURE
P-13
|
Copy of the reply of the Reserve Bank of India
dated 14th June 2011.
|
|
|
20.
|
ANNEXURE
P-14 (collectively)
|
Copies of the complaints by permit holders.
|
|
|
21.
|
ANNEXURE
P-15 (collectively)
|
Copies of the RTI application
and order passed by first appellate authority.
|
|
|
22.
|
ANNEXURE
P-16
|
Copy of the said letter dated 26/04/2011.
|
|
|
23.
|
ANNEXURE
P-17
|
Copy of the representations
dated May 10, 2011.
|
|
|
24.
|
ANNEXURE
P-18
|
Copy of the
valuation certificate.
|
|
|
25.
|
ANNEXURE
P-19
|
Copy of the Hire purchase agreement by Pawan
Credit Co-operative Society.
|
|
|
|
|
Affidavit in support
|
|
|
|
|
Certificate
|
|
|
|
|
Affidavit as per Rule the Hon’ble High Court
of Bombay
|
|
|
|
|
Total Pages
|
|
In the
Hon’ble High Court Judicature at Bombay
Ordinary
Original Civil Jurisdiction
Public
Interest Litigation(L) No 19 of 2012
Mumbai
Taximen Sangathan & others …...Petitioners
Versus
The State Transport Authority & others …….Respondents
SYNOPSIS
|
Date
|
PARTICULARS
|
|
1950
|
The
Bombay Money Lending Act, 1946 was enforced in the state of Maharashtra.
|
|
2010
|
The
Bombay Money Lending Act, 1946 was enforced in the state of Maharashtra. The Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation)
Bill, 2010 was passed by the State Legislative Assembly and is reserved with
the Honorable Governor of Maharashtra till date and no notification has been
published till date.
|
|
---
|
Mumbai
is the financial capital of India but there is an auto /taxi permit mafia
working in the Mumbai city for the last few decades and this mafia is also
running illegal money lending rackets.
It is pertinent to note that more than Rs. 2500 Cr black money is
involved in the said racket.
|
|
---
|
Modus
operandi of the Money Lender’s Mafia in Mumbai:
(i)
They take the signatures of the permit
holders of the taxi men/ auto men on innumerable blank forms, papers, RTO
forms, hire purchase agreement, stamp papers etc.
(ii)
They pay the amount to the car / auto
dealers or the loan borrowers in cash after deducting 15% file charges and
10% commission of their agents.
(iii)
They do not give any copy of the hire
purchase agreement or any other documents to the permit holders. It is
pertinent to note that the loan borrowers never know that which finance firm
/ company had been providing loan to them.
(iv)
They issue the receipt of the EMI on the
name of other firms as well as on the name of the driver of the taxi / auto
instead in the name of the loan borrowers. They charge minimum 36% interest
on the total loan amount.
(v)
All the money lenders do not have the
money lending license as per Section 5 of Money Lending Act, 1946 nor are
they registered with the Department of Non-Banking Supervision, Mumbai region
of the Reserve Bank of India.
(vi)
All the money lenders provide the loan in
cash and acquire EMI’s of the said loan in cash.
(vii)
For the financing of the new vehicles the
money lenders use the Pan Card numbers of the taxi men /auto men and pay lacs
of rupees in cash to the car and auto dealers.
(viii)
The money lenders first make one receipt
showing that they have purchased the taxi/auto from the permit holders with
the remark “fitted with the permit” and the amount is in full and final
settlement of the sale price.
(ix)
The money lenders then hand over the same
vehicle which they had purchased from the permit holders or the loan
borrowers after taking the receipt for vehicle.
(x)
The money lenders get signed blank hire purchase agreement without
taking any signature from the guarantors / witness.
(xi)
The money lenders take the signatures on
the blank form 34 & 35 from the permit holders.
(xii)
The money lenders then take the
possession of the original registration book. It is pertinent to note that as
per the provision of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1946 the original registration
book should be with the vehicle when the vehicle is on the road.
(xiii)
The money lenders issue rough receipts on
plain cards/ plain papers on which they receive the money.
(xiv)
When the permit holders want to renew
their permits or pass their vehicles from the respondent no. 3, 4, & 5,
they require the NOC from the Money lenders and money lenders demand a huge
amount in return for issuing the NOC. It is pertinent to mention that
respondent no. 3, 4 & 5 have always failed to issue the notice as per
Section 51 (7) of Motor Vehicle Act to the money lenders. The Section 51 (7)
is reproduced as under:
51 (7) Special provisions regarding motor
vehicle subject to hire purchase agreement, etc Within seven days of the
receipt of an application under sub-section (6) the financier may issue, or
refuse, for reasons which shall be recorded in writing communicate to the applicant,
to issue, the certificate applied for, and where the financier fails to issue
the certificate and also fails to communicate the reasons for refusal to
issue the certificate to the applicant within the said period of seven days,
the certificate applied for shall be deemed to have been issued by the
financier.
(xv)
It is pertinent to note that due to the
conspiracy between the money lenders and respondent no. 3, 4 & 5 most of
the permit holders are unable to renew their permits due to the non issuance
of NOC by the money lenders. It is further pertinent to note that the money
lenders have a various fictitious sister concerns and even the loan borrowers
do not know which firm had given the
loan to them.
(xvi)
It is further pertinent to note that few
money lenders had issued receipt on different names of firms when the permit
holders paid the EMI to them. It is further pertinent to note that the money
lenders issued the receipts of EMI on
which three firm names were printed but the loan borrowers were unable to
make out from which firm they received the
money exactly.
(xvii)
It is further pertinent to note that,
when any loan borrower sent a notice to
the money lenders relating to the NOC or asking about the money lender license,
the money lenders replied to the loan
borrowers that, “they do not carry on any money lending business hence, Bombay Money Lending Act does not
apply.”
|
|
---
|
The Petitioners
had filed a RTI application with the office of the Registrar for Money
Lending appointed by the Government of Maharashtra, under which they received
information from different offices and they were shocked and surprised to
know that no money lender has a money lending license which is mandatory as
per section 5 of the Bombay Money Lending Act.
|
|
---
|
The Petitioners
had filed an application under the RTI Act with the office of the Department of
Non-Banking supervision Mumbai region / Reserve Bank of India for seeking the
information about the Respondent No. 12 to 28 to know whether they are
registered with them as non-banking companies / firms, but when the
Petitioners received the information from the said bank, they were shocked
and surprised to know that none of the Respondent money lenders were registered with the RBI and the RBI informed the
petitioners that they had forwarded the copy of the Petitioner’s complaint to
the Economic Offence Wing of Mumbai police i.e. Respondent No. 8 but no
action has been taken by them till date willfully and deliberately.
|
|
---
|
Innumerable
loan borrowers were cheated by the money lenders or the Respondents mentioned
above in the case title that do not hold a money lending license as per
Section 5 of Money Lending Act. Innumerable
permit holders made a complaint with the Senior Inspector of Police, Bhoiwada
Police Station or Respondent No. 10 but the Respondent No. 10 failed to take
any action against the money lenders or the Respondent Nos. 12 to 23.
|
|
---
|
Petitioners
had filed an application under the RTI Act, 2005 with the request to Respondent
No. 10 to furnish the copies of the complaints filed by loan borrowers
against the Respondent Nos. 12 to 23 with their report mentioning the action
taken for the last 10 years but the Respondent No. 10 failed to furnish the
information willfully and deliberately.
Thereafter, the Petitioner No. 1 filed an appeal before the First
Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, 2005 for non-furnishing of the
information by Respondent No. 10. The First
Appellate Authority i.e. Zonal Deputy Commissioner of Police passed the order
and directed the Respondent No. 10 to furnish the information to the Petitioners
within 7 days, even then Respondent No. 10 failed to furnish the information
to the Petitioners willfully and deliberately.
|
|
---
|
The Petitioners
had filed a representation before Respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 to take
immediate necessary action against Respondent Nos. 12 to 28 or the money
lenders who do not have or carry the money lending license as per Section 5
of the Money Lending Act. It is pertinent to note that, the Respondent 3, 4
& 5 have failed to take any action or decision on the representation
filed by the Petitioners till date deliberately and willfully.
|
|
---
|
The Petitioners
were shocked and surprised when they came to know that the leading trade
union/association of the Taximen had also hypothecated the vehicles of their
taximen. The Constitution of the Mumbai Taximen Union has no such provision
to hypothecate the vehicle on the name of the money lenders even then the
respondent no. 3, 4 & 5 have indulged in hypothecating the taxis on their
name.
|
|
---
|
Few
major car dealers are also involved with this money lender mafia who are
selling vehicles of Maruti and Hyundai brands as taxis and they are accepting
lacs of rupees in cash from the money lenders and using the PAN cards of the
poor taximen. It is pertinent to note
that if the Respondent No. 9 conducts the investigation thoroughly they will
discover black money amounting to more than Rs. 1000 of crores.
|
|
---
|
A number
of suits were filed by the money lenders, who do not have valid money lending
license as per the provision of The Bombay Money Lending Act, 1946 or Respondent
No. 12 to 28 in this case, against the loan borrowers in the various Hon’ble
courts or in the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, which adds to an unnecessary
extra burden on the Honorable Judiciary. It is pertinent to note that section
10 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 amended in 1975 clearly mentioned
that ”no court shall pass a decree in favour of a money lender in any suit to
which this Act applies (including such suit pending in the court before the
commencement of the Bombay Money Lenders
(Amendment) Act 1975 unless the court is satisfied that as the time
when the loan or any part thereof, to which the suit relates was advanced,
the money lender held a valid license, and if the court is satisfied that the money lender did not
hold a valid license, it shall dismiss the suit”.
|
|
---
|
The Petitioners
had also lodged a protest against the money lenders / credit co-operative
societies and co-operative banks for exploitation of taximen at large by the
name of “HALLA BOL MOVEMENT” with the prior intimation to the State
Government and the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5 but no initiative or any
action has been taken by the State and the Respondent Nos. 2 to 10 against
the illegal activities of the money lenders.
|
|
---
|
The Petitioners
have sent many representations to the State of Maharashtra and other authorities
along with Respondent Nos. 2 to 10 regarding the illegal possession of the
registration book of taxis and autos along with signatures of the permit
holders on the blank papers and also RTO forms by the private financiers,
money lenders, credit co-operative societies etc. But till date neither any action has been
taken nor any reply has been sent by any authority or the Respondent Nos. 2
to 10.
|
|
---
|
Respondent
Nos. 2, 3 , 4, 5, 6, 10 & 11 know very well that all the taxis and auto
rickshaws original registration books are in the illegal custody of the money
lenders, co-operative societies, banks etc…… It is pertinent to note that the
Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 & 11 do not demand or even try to check
the original registration book, permit and other documents, deliberately and
willfully because they know very well that these papers are in the illegal
custody of money lenders or the other financial institutions who are
exploiting the poor taximen / auto men. It is further pertinent to note that
the Respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5 & 11 have instructed their staff to check
only the license and not the original permit or registration book of the
taximen / auto men. It proves the nexus between the money lender mafia and Respondent
Nos. 3, 4, 5 & 11.
|
|
---
|
The
money lenders or the credit co-operative societies or the financial
institutions insist or force the permit holder or the taximen / auto men to
take the insurance from them on higher rates. It is pertinent to note that in
fact the money lenders/Respondents had taken the money from the taximen /
auto men and had just given the cover note of the insurance company even though
most of them had not paid the insurance amount to the insurance company. The
taximen / auto men never get the original insurance policy and they are
running the vehicle without the insurance for year’s altogether.
|
|
---
|
In
similar manner the credit co-operative societies are also doing the finance /
money lending business. It is
pertinent to note that the State of Maharashtra had exempted these credit co-operative
societies from the money lending act, even then they are exploiting the
taximen / auto men in the same way as the money lenders, but no authority is
ready to take any action against them. It is pertinent to note that the office
of the Asst. Registrar who is dealing with the matter under section 101 of
the Maharashtra Co-operative Society Act is indirectly run by the credit
co-operative societies and these offices have become a kind of settlement
junctions for the said credit co-operative societies.
|
|
---
|
These
credit co-operative societies are in possession of the binding book of the
agreements along with all the RTO forms and other papers, in which they take
the signatures on the blank booklets from the loan borrowers but no copy of
the loan agreement and other papers are provided to the taximen.
|
|
---
|
These
money lenders / credit societies are taking false valuation certificates of
the vehicles and show the value of the vehicles double the market price. It is pertinent to note that in reality they
include the market cost of the permit.
|
|
---
|
The Respondent
No. 28 i.e. Pawan Credit Co-operative Society had showed the loan Rs. 1,
28,000/- to the loan borrower and repayable in the monthly installment of Rs.
1,524/- in 84 installments but the respondent no. 28 is taking the EMI of Rs.
4,500/-.
|
|
---
|
A number of loan borrowers
have filed their complaints against the illegal and criminal act of the money
lenders, particularly with the Senior Police Inspector, Bohiwada and he has
failed to take any cognizance against the money lenders till date
deliberately and willfully.
|
|
---
|
The Respondent
No. 12 to 28 are using muscle power to take the illegal possession of the
taxi vehicle from the taximen /auto men without giving any notice and they
sell the same in the market without any intimation to the owner of the permit
holder.
|
|
---
|
A
number of taximen /permit holders raise their voice against the illegal act
of the money lenders or the financial institutes but no action has been taken
by any authority till date.
|
|
---
|
The
Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Bill, 2010 has not been implemented
till date and the same is reserved with the Hon’ble Governor of Maharashtra
|
|
---
|
The Registrar of Money lending has failed to
take any action against the illegal money lenders, who do not have money lending license till date
|
|
---
|
The public/taximen/automen at large are being
cheated by the money lenders everyday in the city of Mumbai and the State has
completely failed to take any action against them.
|
|
17/2/2012
|
Hence, this Public Interest Litigation is
being filed before this Hon’ble Court.
|
Points
to be argued:
i)
Whether the license is necessary as per the
section 5 of the Money Lending Act, 1946 to the Money Lenders in the city of
Mumbai or the State of Maharashtra?.
ii)
Whether the copy of the agreements executed
between the permit holders and the money lenders is necessary to provide the
permit holders / borrowers?.
iii)
Whether the Respondent No. 4 to 6 are a duty
bound to implement the money lending license as per section 5 of the Bombay
Money Lending Act, 1946 before hypothecation of the vehicle?
iv)
Whether the Respondent No. 4 to 6 are duty bound
to accept the renewal fee of the permit from the permit holders till the permit
holders get the NOC from the money lenders?
v)
Whether the taximen are entitled to renewal
their permits /replacement order of their permits without the NOC of the money
lenders who do not have the money lending license under the Bombay Money
Lending Act, 1946 and further can be allowed to continue their business
vi)
Whether the original registration book,
insurance policy and the original permit would be under the custody of the
money lenders or with the vehicle when on road?
vii)
Whether the State is bound to implement the
Maharashtra Money Lending (regulation) Bill 2010, when the same Bill passed by
the Legislative Assembly?
viii)
Whether the recovery suit / petitions liable to
dismiss as per Section 10 of the Bombay Money Lending Act, which are filed by
the money lenders, who do not have the money lending licence as per Section 5
of the Bombay Money Lending Act, which are
pending before the Ld. subordinate /
courts and Hon’ble High Court of Bombay ?
ix)
Whether the hypothecation of the illegal money
lenders to be cancelled, who do not have the money lending licence as per
Section 5 of the Bombay Money Lending Act?
x)
Whether the taximen / permit holders have right
to get the copies of the hire purchase agreement, statement of account,
original registration book, insurance policy and the permit from the money
lenders?
xi)
Whether grave and manifest injustice has been
done with the taximen / public at large?
Acts:
The
Bombay Money Lending Act, 1946
The
Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Bill - 2010
Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988
The
Constitution of India
Authorities:
At present none:
Petitioners
–In –Person
IN THE
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY
ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Public Interest Litigation Writ No of 2012
In
the matter of Articles 226 of the Constitution of India
And
In
the matter of Section 5 of the Bombay Money Lending Act, 1946
And
In
the matter of Maharashtra
Money Lending (Regulation) Bill,
2010.
And
In
the matter of implementation of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation)
Bill, 2010
And
In
the matter of direction to produce the money lending license as per section 5
of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946
And
In
the matter of direction to produce the books of accounts
And
In
the matter of direction to produce the copy of the original RC Book
And
In
the matter of direction to produce the copies of loan agreement along with
statement of accounts
And
In
the matter of, direction to make a proper investigation regarding the black
money involved in illegal money lending business.
And
In
the matter of direction to the subordinate courts to dismiss all the recovery
petitions filed by the Money lenders in violation of section 5 and 10 of the
Bombay Money Lending Act, 1946.
And
In
the matter of cancellation of the hypothecations, who are involved in the
illegal money lending business as per the provision of the Bombay Money Lending
Act, 1946
And
In
the matter of Bombay Money Lending Act, 1946
And
In
the matter of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
1.
MUMBAI
TAXIMEN SANGATHAN
Through its General Secretary
…………….Petitioners
VERSUS
1.
The
State of Maharashtra,
Through
Public Prosecutor,
Original
Side, Bombay High Court,
Mumbai.
2.
The Chief
Secretary
Government
of Maharashtra
Mantralya,
Mumbai
3.
THE
STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY.
Through
its Chairman
Constituted under the provisions of
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, having
Its office of the Principal Secretary
Transport
(Home Department) 4th Floor, Mantralya,
Mumbai
4.
The Regional Transport Office,
Truck
Terminal
B-2,
3rd Floor,
Wadala,
Mumbai – 400 037
5.
The
Regional Transport Office,
Old
Body Guard Lane,
Tulsiwadi,
Tardeo,
Mumbai-
400 034.
6.
The
Regional Transport Office,
Western Region
Ambivli Village,
Opp. Manish Nagar,
Andheri West, Mumbai 400 053
7.
The
Commissioner of Police,
Mumbai
Mumbai
Police Head Quarters,
Crawford
Market, Mumbai.
8.
The
Registrar of Money Lending,
6th
Floor, Malhotra House,
Opp.
CST Railway Terminus,
Mumbai
9.
The
Addl. Commissioner of Police,
Economic
Offence Wing,
Mumbai
Police Head Quarters,
Crawford Market, Mumbai.
10.
The
Deputy Director General,
Investigation,
Income Tax
Mumbai
11.
The
Senior Police Inspector,
Bhoiwada
Police Station,
Dadar
East, Mumbai.
12.
The
Joint Commissioner of Police,
Traffic,
Traffic Police head Quarters,
Worli, Mumbai
13.
The
General Manager,
Non-Banking Sector,
Reserve Bank of India,
Worli, Mumbai
14.
Ruby Enterprises
/ Finance Company,
Gurunanak Market,
Opp. Chitra Cinema, Dr. Ambedkar Road,
Dadar East, Mumbai 400014.
15.
Bobby
Enterprises
Gurunanak Market,
Opp. Chitra Cinema, Dr. Ambedkar Road,
Dadar East, Mumbai 400014.
16.
Singh
Motors
Gurunanak Market,
Opp. Chitra Cinema, Dr. Ambedkar Road,
Dadar East, Mumbai 400014.
17.
Khalsa
Enterprises
Gurunanak Market,
Opp. Chitra Cinema, Dr. Ambedkar Road,
Dadar East, Mumbai 400014.
18.
Singh
Motors
Gurunanak Market,
Opp. Chitra Cinema, Dr. Ambedkar Road,
Dadar East, Mumbai 400014.
19.
Ajmani
Enterprises,
Gurunanak Market,
Opp. Chitra Cinema, Dr. Ambedkar Road,
Dadar East, Mumbai 400014.
20.
Guru
deep Finance,
S. V Road,
Santacruz West,
Mumbai.
21.
Gill
Finance,
Gurunanak
Market,
Opp.
Chitra Cinema, Dr. Ambedkar Road,
Dadar
East, Mumbai 400014.
22.
Gill
Enterprises,
Gurunanak
Market,
Opp.
Chitra Cinema, Dr. Ambedkar Road,
Dadar
East, Mumbai 400014.
23.
Gandhi
Finance,
Gurunanak Market,
Opp.
Chitra Cinema, Dr. Ambedkar Road,
Dadar
East, Mumbai 400014.
24.
CG
Enterprises,
Gurunanak
Market,
Opp.
Chitra Cinema, Dr. Ambedkar Road,
Dadar
East, Mumbai 400014.
25.
GG
Enterprises,
Gurunanak
Market,
Opp.
Chitra Cinema, Dr. Ambedkar Road,
Dadar
East, Mumbai 400014.
26.
Raj
Enterprises,
Gurunanak
Market,
Opp.
Chitra Cinema, Dr. Ambedkar Road,
Dadar
East, Mumbai 400014.
27.
Auto
Business & Finance Corporation,
21, Snehdhara CHS
Jeevan Vikas Marg,
Sahar Road, Andheri East,
Mumbai 400 069
28.
Sai Enterprises,
Chhabinath,
Pande Chawl,
Naupada,
Sahar
Road, Marol Naka,
Andheri
(East)
Mumbai
29.
Bhardwaj
Enterprises,
Narain
Nagar L.B.S Road,
Ghatkopar
(W),
Mumbai
– 400 084
30.
Pawan
Credit Co-operative Society Ltd.,
Singh
Niwas,
Parsiwadi,
Kalina,
Santacruz (East),
Mumbai
– 400 098
31.
Sudhiksha
Credit Co-operative Society,
1,
Radhavilas Apartment,
Vamanrao
Bhoier Marg,
Near
Kandharpada lake,
Dahisar(W),
Mumbai
– 400 068
…RESPONDENTS
To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice,
And The
Other Pusine Hon’ble Judges,
Of the
High Court of Bombay
The petitioners submit as under:
Respectfully SHOWETH:
1.
The Petitioners submit that the cause of action for filing this Public
Interest Litigation petition has arisen in Mumbai and this Hon’ble Court has
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to try and
entertain this petition.
2.
The Petitioner No. 1 states that, he has thoroughly studied and
researched on the subject matter of the present petition for the last five
years.
3.
That the petitioners states that Petitioner
No. 1 is a Trade Union formed by the Taxi men under the name and style of Mumbai
Taximen Sangathan & Petitioners No. 2 to 5 are law students. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Maharashtra;
Respondent No. 2 is the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra. Respondent
No. 3 is the State Transport Authority (constituted under the provisions of the
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988). Respondent No. 4, 5 & 6 are the Regional
Transport Offices, Eastern, Western & central respectively (constituted
under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988).Respondent No.7 is the
Commissioner of Police, Mumbai Police Head quarters. Respondent No. 8 is the
Registrar for Money Lending, appointed by the Government of Maharashtra under
the Bombay Money Lending Act, 1946. Respondent
No. 9 is the Addl. Commissioner of Police, Economic Offence Wing. Respondent
No. 10 is the Dy. Director General of Investigation, Income Tax, Mumbai.
Respondent No. 11 is the Senior Inspector of Police, Bhoiwada Police Station,
Dadar East, Mumbai, Respondent No. 12 is the Joint Commissioner of Police,
Traffic. Respondent No. 13 is the General Manager, Department of Non Banking
Supervision, Mumbai Regional Office, Reserve Bank of India. Respondent No. 14
to 29 are the private Money Lenders and Respondent No. 30 and 31 are co-operative
housing societies. The Petitioners are the residents of Mumbai, Maharashtra and
are doing business of running taxis in Mumbai and as such are competent to
invoke the extra – ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court.
4.
That
the Petitioners state that, the Subject
Matters of the Present Petition are as under :
(a)
The Bombay Money Lending Act, 1946 and the Maharashtra Money
Lending (Regulation) Bill, 2010.
(b)
The Registrar of Money Lending has failed to implement the Bombay
Money Lending Act, 1946.
(c)
No Money Lenders have money lending license mandatory under
section 5 of the Bombay Money Lending Act. 1946
(d)
The State of Maharashtra
passed the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Bill, 2010 but the same bill
is reserved by the Hon’ble Governor of Maharashtra since 2010.
(e)
The State of Maharashtra is not keen to implement the Maharashtra
Money Lending (Regulation) Bill, 2010 in the interest of public at large.
(f)
The Respondent No. 1 to 6 failed to check the Money Lending License
of the Money Lenders and also failed to check the Hire Purchase Agreement
before Hypothecation of the Vehicle.
(g)
The Respondent No. 12 to 32 are not ready to furnish the copy of
the agreement and account statements to the loan borrowers.
(h)
The Respondent No. 12 to 32 had taken the copy of the original
registration book / permit of the vehicle along with the signed blank RTO forms
in their custody.
(i)
The Money lenders are charging the interest as per their whims and
even more than 36% and also deduct the commission of their agents and filling
charges up to 30% of the loan amount.
(j)
The Money Lenders issue the provisional receipts in the names of
the drivers instead of the loan borrowers.
(k)
The Money Lenders issue the provisional receipts in the name of
different firms on their own and not from the one who has actually given the
loan.
(l)
The Money Lenders takes the loan repayment forcibly and illegally
through muscle power / gundas and even takes away the possession of the
vehicles forcibly.
(m)
The Money lenders sell the vehicle of the loan borrower without
any intimation to the loan borrowers.
(n)
The Money lenders are using forge / prepare false valuation
certificate of the vehicle.
(o)
The Loan borrowers take the loan from the money lenders against
the mortgage of their old vehicle and not on the permit.
(p)
The Money Lenders are acting as a permit mafia in the city of
Mumbai and more than 50% permits are under their control.
(q)
The Money Lenders force the loan borrowers to take the insurance
from them and they charge very high for the insurance of the vehicle and give
only one cover note of the insurance company but do not hand over the original
insurance policy
(r)
The respondent no. 1 to 6
did not check the original permit and the original Registration book, when the
vehicle / taxi / auto rickshaws are on road.
5.
That the Petitioner No. 1 states that, he is the General Secretary
of the Mumbai Taximen Sangathan and the Chief Executive Officer of the Tristars
Alliance Group. It is pertinent to note that earlier the petitioner was the
Chief Executive Officer of the Asian Sky Shop Limited. The details of the
office bearers of the present petitioner are as under:
Mr.
Bhupendra Surani – President
Mr.
Shiv Adhar Yadav – Vice President
Mr.
Sanjay Khemka – General Secretary
Mr.
Kanhaiya Singh – Secretary
Mr.
Hemant Khemka – Treasurer
6. That the Petitioners
state that, petitioners or any of the petitioners when there are more than one,
is/are or has not been involved in any other civil, revenue, criminal
litigation in any, capacity before any Court or Tribunal and if so, complete
details of such litigation including
7.
That the Petitioner No. 1 is the registered
Trade Union under the name and style of Mumbai
Taximen Sangathan. The Petitioners are the residents of Mumbai,
Maharashtra and are doing the business of running taxis in Mumbai and
Maharashtra, as such are competent to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of
this Hon'ble court. The copy of the Trade certificate is attached herewith as Annexure – P-1.
8.
That the present petition is filed through
Shri. Sanjay Khemka, the Secretary of the Mumbai Taximen Sangathan and Petitioner No. 2 to 5 are law students, who
are well conversant with the facts of the case and common point of law, as such
this writ petition is filed. The copy of the Resolution is attached herewith as
Annexure – P-2.
9.
That the Petitioners state that, The Bombay
Money Lending Act, 1946 is enforced in the state of Maharashtra. The copy of
the said Act is annexed as Annexure P-3. It is pertinent to note that The
Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Bill, 2010 was passed by the State
Legislative Assembly and is reserved with the Honorable Governor of Maharashtra
till date and no notification has been published to date.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
a.
That the Petitioner states that, Mumbai is the
financial capital of India but there is an auto /taxi permit mafia working in
Mumbai city for the last few decades and this mafia is also running an illegal
money lending racket. It is pertinent to
note that more than Rs. 2500 Cr black money is involved in the said racket.
b.
That the Petitioner states that, this mafia is working
with corrupt officials of the Respondent No. 3, 4 & 5.
Modus operandi of the Money
Lender’s Mafia in Mumbai:
(i)
They take the signatures of the permit holders
of the taxi men/ auto men on innumerable blank forms, papers, RTO forms, hire
purchase agreement, stamp papers etc.
(ii)
They pay the amount to the car / auto dealers or
the loan borrowers in cash after deducting 15% file charges and 10% commission
of their agents.
(iii)
They do not give any copy of the hire purchase
agreement or any other documents to the permit holders. It is pertinent to note
that the loan borrowers do not know which of the finance firm / company had
given loan to them.
(iv)
They issue the receipt of the EMI in the name of
other firms as well as in the name of the driver of the taxi / auto instead of
the name of the loan borrowers. The copy of the said receipt is annexed as Annexure P-4 (collectively).
(v)
They charge minimum 36% interest on the total
loan amount.
(vi)
All the money lenders are not having the money
lending license which is mandatory as per Section 5 of Money Lending Act,
1946. They are not registered with the
Department of Non-Banking Supervision, Mumbai region of the Reserve Bank of
India. The copy of the letter received from the bank is annexed as Annexure P-5.
(vii)
All the money lenders provide the loan in cash
and receive EMI of the said loan in cash and do not accept cheque.
(viii)
For financing the new vehicles the money lenders
are using the Pan Card numbers of the taximen /auto men and paying lacs of
rupees in cash to the car and auto dealers.
(ix)
The money lenders first make one receipt showing
that they had purchased the taxi/auto from the permit holders with the remark
“fitted with the permit” and the amount is in full and final settlement of the
sale price. The copy of the official sale receipt received from the money
lenders is annexed as Annexure P-6.
(x)
The money lenders then hand over the same
vehicle which they had purchased from the permit holders or the loan borrowers
after taking the receipt for vehicle. The copy of the handed over vehicle’s
agreement is annexed as Annexure P-7.
(xi)
The money lenders got signed blank hire purchase
agreements without taking any signatures from the guarantors / witnesses.
(xii)
The money lenders take the signatures on the
blank forms 34 & 35 from the permit holders/borrowers. The copy of the said blank agreement is
annexed as Annexure P-8.
(xiii)
The money lenders are in possession of the
original registration book. It is pertinent to note that as per the provision
of the Motor Vehicle Act, the original registration book should be with the
vehicle when the vehicle is on the road.
(xiv)
The money lenders issue rough receipts on plain
cards/ plain papers to the permit holders on which they received the money. The
copy of the said rough receipts is annexed as Annexure P-9 (collectively).
(xv)
When the permit holders want to renew their
permits or get their vehicles passed from the Respondent No. 3, 4, & 5 then
they need the NOC from the Money lenders and money lenders demand a huge amount
to issue the NOC. It is pertinent to note that respondent no. 3, 4 & 5 have
always failed to issue the notice as per Section 51 (7) of Motor Vehicle Act to
the money lenders. The Section 51 (7) is reproduced as under:
51 (7): Special provisions regarding motor
vehicle subject to hire purchase agreement, etc Within seven days of the
receipt of an application under sub-section (6) the financier may issue, or
refuse, for reasons which shall be recorded in writing communicate to the
applicant, to issue, the certificate applied for, and where the financier fails
to issue the certificate and also fails to communicate the reasons for refusal
to issue the certificate to the applicant within the said period of seven days,
the certificate applied for shall be deemed to have been issued by the
financier.
(xvi)
It is pertinent to note that due to the
conspiracy between the money lenders and Respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5, most of
the permit holders are unable to renew their permits due to the non issuance of
NOC by the money lenders. It is further pertinent to note that the money
lenders have various fictitious sister concerns and even the loan borrowers do
not know as to which firm had given the loan to them.
(xvii)
It is further pertinent to note that few money
lenders had issued receipt on different names of firms when the permit holders
paid the EMI to them. It is further pertinent to note that the money lenders
issued the receipts of EMI on which three firm’s names were printed but the
loan borrowers do not know from which firm they received the money exactly and to whom they are paying. The
copies of the said receipts are annexed as Annexure
P-10 (collectively).
(xviii)
It is further pertinent to note that when any
loan borrower used to send a notice to the money lenders relating to the NOC or
asking about the money lender license, the money lenders used to reply to the
loan borrower that, “they do not carry on any money lending business hence, Bombay Money Lending Act does not
apply.” The copies of the said notices relating to NOCs are annexed as Annexure P-11 (collectively).
10.
That the Petitioners state that, the
Petitioners had filed a RTI application with the office of the Registrar for
Money Lending appointed by the Government of Maharashtra, under which they
received information from different offices and they were shocked and surprised
to know that no money lender has a money lending license which is mandatory as
per section 5 of the Bombay Money Lending Act. The copy of the money lender’s
list is attached herewith as Annexure –
P-12 in which the name of the money lenders/Respondents who are dealing in
financing taxis / autos is mentioned.
11.
That the Petitioners state that, the
Petitioners had filed an application under the RTI Act with the office of the
Department of Non-Banking supervision Mumbai region / Reserve Bank of India for
seeking the information about the Respondent No. 12 to 28 to know whether they
are registered with them as non-banking companies / firms, but when the
Petitioners received the information from the said bank then they were shocked
and surprised to know that none of the Respondent money lenders were registered with the RBI and the RBI informed the petitioners
that they had forwarded the copy of the Petitioner’s complaint to the Economic
Offence Wing of Mumbai police i.e. Respondent No. 8 but no action has been
taken by them till date willfully and deliberately. Copy of the reply of the Reserve Bank of
India dated 14th June 2011 is annexed as Annexure P-13.
12.
That the Petitioners state that,
Innumerable loan borrowers were cheated by the money lenders or the Respondents
mentioned above in the case title that do not hold a money lending license as
per Section 5 of Money Lending Act.
Innumerable permit holders made a complaint with the Senior Inspector of
Police, Bhoiwada Police Station or Respondent No. 10 but the Respondent No. 10
failed to take any action against the money lenders or the Respondent Nos. 12
to 23. Copies of the complaints are
annexed as Annexure P-14.
13.
That the Petitioners state that,
Petitioners had filed an application under the RTI Act, 2005 with the request
to Respondent No. 10 to furnish the copies of the complaints filed by loan
borrowers against the Respondent Nos. 12 to 23 with their report mentioning the
action taken for the last 10 years but the Respondent No. 10 failed to furnish
the information willfully and deliberately.
Thereafter, the Petitioner No. 1 filed an appeal before the First
Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, 2005 for non-furnishing of the
information by Respondent No. 10. The
First Appellate Authority i.e. Zonal Deputy Commissioner of Police had passed
the order and directed the Respondent No. 10 to furnish the information to the
Petitioners within 7 days, even then Respondent No. 10 had failed to furnish
the information to the Petitioners willfully and deliberately. Copies of the
RTI application and order passed by First Appellate Authority are annexed as Annexure P-15(collectively).
14.
That the Petitioners state that, the
Petitioners had filed a representation before Respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 to
take immediate and necessary action against Respondent Nos. 12 to 28 or the
money lenders who do not have or carry the money lending license as per Section
5 of the Money Lending Act. It is pertinent to note that, the Respondent 3, 4
& 5 have failed to take any action or decision on the representation filed
by the Petitioners till date deliberately and willfully.
15.
That the Petitioners state that they were
shocked and surprised when they came to know that the leading trade
union/association of the Taximen had also hypothecated the vehicles of their
taximen. The Constitution of the Mumbai Taximen Union has no such provision to
hypothecate the vehicle on the name of the money lenders even then the
Respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 have indulged in hypothecating the taxis on their
name.
16.
That the petitioners state that, few major
car dealers are also involved with this money lending mafia who are selling
vehicles of Maruti and Hyundai brands as taxis and they are accepting lakhs of
rupees in cash from the money lenders and using the PAN cards of the poor
taximen. It is pertinent to note that if
the Respondent No. 9 conducts the investigation seriously they will discover
black money amounting Rs. 1000 of crores.
17.
That the Petitioners state that, A number
of suits were filed by the money lenders, who do not have valid money lending
license as per the provision of The Bombay Money Lending Act, 1946 or
Respondent No. 12 to 28 in this case, against the loan borrowers in the various
Hon’ble courts or in the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, which adds to an
unnecessary extra burden on the Honorable Judiciary. It is pertinent to note
that section 10 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 amended in 1975 clearly
mentioned that ”no court shall pass a decree in favour of a money lender in any
suit to which this Act applies (including such suit pending in the court before
the commencement of the Bombay Money Lenders
(Amendment) Act 1975 unless the court is satisfied that as the time when
the loan or any part thereof, to which the suit relates was advanced, the money
lender held a valid license, and if the court
is satisfied that the money lender did not hold a valid license, it
shall dismiss the suit”.
18.
That the Petitioners state that, the
Petitioners had also lodged a protest against the money lenders / credit
co-operative societies and co-operative banks for exploitation of taximen at
large by the name of “HALLA BOL MOVEMENT” with the prior intimation to the
State Government and the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5 but no initiative or
any action has been taken by the State and the Respondent Nos. 2 to 10 against
the illegal activities of the money lenders. The copy of the said letter dated
26/04/2011 is annexed as Annexure P-16.
19.
That the Petitioners state that, the
Petitioners have sent many representations to the State of Maharashtra and
other authorities along with Respondent Nos. 2 to 10 regarding the illegal
possession of the registration book of taxis and autos along with signatures of
the permit holders on the blank papers and also RTO forms by the private
financiers, money lenders, credit co-operative societies etc. But till date neither action has been taken
nor has any reply been sent by any authority or the Respondent Nos. 2 to
10. Copy of the representations dated
May 10, 2011 is annexed as Annexure P-17.
20.
That the Petitioners state that, Respondent
Nos. 2, 3 , 4, 5, 6, 10 & 11 know very well that all the taxis and auto
rickshaws original registration books are in the illegal custody of the money
lenders, co-operative societies, banks etc…… It is pertinent to note that the
Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 & 11 do not demand or check the original
registration book, permit and other documents, deliberately and willfully
because they know very well that these papers are in the illegal custody of
money lenders or the other financial institutions who are exploiting the poor
taximen / auto men. It is further pertinent to note that the Respondent Nos. 3,
4, 5 & 11 have instructed their staff to check only the license and not the
original permit or registration book of the taximen / auto men. It proves the
nexus between the money lender mafia and Respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5 & 11.
21.
That the Petitioners state that, the money
lenders or the credit co-operative societies or the financial institutions
insist or force the permit holder or the taximen / auto men to take the
insurance from them on hire rates. It is pertinent to note that in fact the
money lenders/Respondents had taken the money from the taximen / auto men and
had just given the cover note of the insurance company even though most of them
had not paid the insurance amount to the insurance company. The taximen / auto
men never get the original insurance policy and they are running the vehicle
without the insurance for year after year.
22.
That the Petitioners state that, in similar
manner the credit co-operative societies are also doing the finance / money
lending business. It is pertinent to
note that the State of Maharashtra had exempted these credit co-operative
societies from the money lending act, then too they are exploiting the taximen
/ auto men in the same way as the money lenders, but no authority is ready to
take any action against them. It is pertinent to note that the office of the
Asst. Registrar who is dealing with the matter under section 101 of the
Maharashtra Co-operative Society Act is indirectly run by the credit
co-operative societies and these offices have become a kind of settlement
junctions for the said credit co-operative societies.
23.
That the Petitioners state that, these
credit co-operative societies are in possession of the binding book of the
agreements along with all the RTO forms and other papers, in which they take
the signatures on the blank booklets from the loan borrowers but no copy of the
loan agreement and other papers are
provided to the taximen.
24.
That the Petitioners state that, these
money lenders / credit societies had taken the false valuation certificates of
the vehicles and shown the value of the vehicles more than double the market
price. It is pertinent to note that in
real they are included in the market cost of the permit. The copy of the valuation certificate is annexed as Annexure P-18 for ready reference and
prove how these money lenders / credit societies are cheated the taximen /auto
men at large.
25.
That the Petitioners state that, the
Respondent No. 28 i.e. Pawan Credit Co-operative Society had showed the loan
Rs. 1, 28,000/- to the loan borrower and repayable in the monthly installment
of Rs. 1,524/- in 84 installments but the respondent no. 28 is taking the EMI
of Rs. 4,500/-. The copy of the said agreement is enclosed as Annexure P-19.
26.
That the Petitioners state that the
Government of Maharashtra had passed the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation)
Bill 2010 in the year 2010 but the same bill is reserved by the Hon’ble
Governor of Maharashtra since long and the state is not keen to implement the
same in the interest of public at large.
27.
That the Petitioners state that, a number
of loan borrowers have filed their complaints against the illegal and criminal
act of the money lenders, particularly with the Senior Police Inspector,
Bohiwada i.e., Respondent No. 11 and he has failed to take any cognizance
against the money lenders till date deliberately and willfully.
28.
That the Petitioners state that, the
Respondent No. 12 to 32 are using muscle power to take the illegal possession
of the taxi vehicle from the taximen /auto men without giving any notice and
they sell the same in the market without any intimation to the owner of the
permit holder.
29.
That the Petitioners state that, a number
of taximen /permit holders have raised their voice against the illegal act of
the money lenders or the financial institutes but no action has been taken till
date.
30.
That the present petition is being filed by way of Public Interest
Litigation and the Petitioner does not have any personal interest in the matter
31.
The petition is being filed in the interest of the Taximen as well
as public at large. Hence this present petition is filed by the present Petitioners
i.e. Mumbai Taximen Sangathan and the Law Students.
32.
That the entire litigation costs, including the other cost/ fee
and other charges are being borne by the petitioner no. 1. The PAN No. of the Petitioner
is AQMPK6798B.
33.
The Petitioner has not filed any other petition in this Hon’ble
Court or in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India wherein the impugned actions are
subject matter of challenge
34.
That a thorough research
has been conducted in the matter raised through the petition (all the relevant
material in respect of such research shall be annexed with the petition).
35.
That to the best of the petitioner(s) knowledge and research, the
issue raised was not dealt with or decided and that a similar or identical
petition was not filed earlier by him/it
36.
That the Petitioner has understood that in the course of hearing
of this petition the Court may require any security to be furnished towards
costs or any other charges and the petitioner shall have to comply with such
requirements.
37.
That the Petitioners state that the Petitioner had made several
representations before the Authorities but no reply has been given by such
authorities, the reasons best known to them.
38.
That the Petitioners states that there is no delay, for filing the
present petition.
39.
That the petitioners state that no caveat has been filed or any
notice has been received of lodging a caveat by the respondents /opposite
party.
40. That the Petitioners
state that they do not have any personal or private interest and the present
Petition has been filed in the interest
for the benefits and welfare of the taximen/automen, who are put into the
similar kind of situation as the Petitioners are at present.
41.
The Petitioners submit that there is no other efficacious and
effective remedy as available under the law otherwise that the remedy in Writ
Jurisdiction.
42.
The Petitioners are paying fixed court fee of Rs. 1000/- for the
purpose of this petition.
43.
The Petitioner shall rely upon documents, a list whereof is
annexed hereto and also the documents to which reference has been made in this
petition.
That the following questions of law point
are involved in the present writ petition for the kind consideration of this
Hon’ble Court:-
xii)
Whether the license is necessary as per the
section 5 of the Money Lending Act, 1946 to the Money Lenders in the city of
Mumbai or the State of Maharashtra.
xiii)
Whether the copy of the agreements executed
between the permit holders and the money lenders is necessary to provide the
permit holders / borrowers.
xiv)
Whether the Respondent No. 1 to 6 are a duty
bound to see the money lending license as per section 5 of the Bombay Money
Lending Act, 1946 before hypothecation of the vehicle?
xv)
Whether the Respondent No. 2 to 6 are duty bound
to accept the renewal fee of the permit from the permit holders till the permit
holders get the NOC from the money lenders?
xvi)
Whether the Petitioners are entitled to renewal
their permits /replacement order of their permits without the NOC of the money
lenders who do not have the money lending license under the Bombay Money
Lending Act, 1946 and further can be allowed to continue their business
xvii)
Whether the act of the Respondent No. 2 to 6 are
legal and justify when they are not ready to take / accept the papers in inward
and not accepting the renewal fee on time?
xviii)
Whether grave and manifest injustice has been
done with the Petitioners?
44.
That the Petitioners are left with no other
alternative remedy except to approach this Hon’ble Court by way of filing the
present writ petition under articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
45.
The statutory remedy of appeal/revision of
quashing the impugned orders is not available to the Petitioners against the
impugned order.
46.
The petitioners craves leave off this Hon’ble Court ot add, amend,
alter, delete and/or rescind any of the averments and/or submissions made
hereinabove with the leave of this
Hon’ble Court.
It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that
under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to:-
(i)
Summon the whole record of the present case and
after perusing the same may be pleased to ;
(ii)
Issue a writ, direction or order against
respondents No. 1 & 2 to take necessary action for implementation of Bombay
Money Act, 1946 and the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Bill, 2010
(iii)
Issue a writ/direction/order against respondents
No. 3 to 6 to cancel the hypothecation of money lenders, not having money
lending license
(iv)
Issue a writ, direction or order against
respondent No. 8 and 13 to initiate action against the individuals, firms, societies
or companies engaged in the business of money lending under the garb of
hire-purchase, without having money lending license as per the provisions of
Bombay Money Lending Act.
(v)
Issue a writ direction or order against the respondent’s
No. 14 to 31 to reject the applications filed by
money lenders or of any other money lenders not having money lending license in
accordance with Bombay Money Lending Act, for recovery of loan.
(vi)
To direct the respondent no. 7, 9 & 11 to
register the crime against the money lenders who do not carry the money lending
licence and doing cheating and forgery with the taximen / public at large.
(vii)
To direct the respondent no. 12 to make sure the
original registration book, original insurance policy and the copy of the
permit along with all the other papers with the vehicle when plying on road.
(viii)
To direct the respondent No.7 to take action
against the Senior Police inspector, Bhoiwada for not taking any action on the
complaint of the taximen at large
(ix)
To direct the respondent no. 10 to conduct
proper investigation about the black money used by the money lenders and submit
their report before this Hon’ble Court within 3 months.
(x)
To direct the respondent no. 4 to 6 to accept
the permit renewal fee from the loan borrowers / money lenders till they get
the NOC from them as per the law.
(xi)
To direct the respondent no. 4 to 6 to check /scrutiny
the hire purchase agreement as per the law and keep the copy in their record
before doing the hypothecation and also keep the copy of the money lending
licence in their record.
(xii)
To direct the respondent no. 4 to 6 to renew the
permits and issue the replacement order to the taximen at large, which permits
were unable to renew due to the illegal acts of the money lenders.
(xiii)
To issue any other appropriate writ, order or
direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and
circumstances of the present case;
(xiv)
To dispense with the service of advance notice
upon the respondents;
(xv)
To dispense with the filing of the certified
copies of the Annexure
(xvi)
To accept the present writ petition with costs
in favor of the petitioner and against the respondents.
Place: Mumbai
Dated: 17-02- 2012
PETITIONERS
IN PERSON
Verification
We,
Sanjay Khemka, Aarti Cindala, Arka Navle and Madhavi Garde the petitioners
above named, Verified that the contents on the forgoing paragraphs mentioned
above are true and correct to my
knowledge and or believed to be true and correct as per legal information
received and believed to be correct. No part of it is incorrect and false and
nothing material fact has been kept concealed there from.
Place: Mumbai
Dated: 17- 02
-2012
Petitioners
in Person
Before me
In the Hon’ble High Court Judicature at Bombay
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
Public Interest Litigation Writ No of 2012
Mumbai Taximen Sangathan &
Others …...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others
…….Respondents
LIST OF
DOCUMENTS ON WICH PETITIONER WILL RELY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Copy of
the Trade certificate.
2. Copy of
the Resolution.
3. Copy of
the Bombay Money Lending Act, 1946.
4. Copy of
the EMI receipts.
5. Copy of
the letter received from the RBI.
6. Copy of
the official sale receipt received from the money lenders.
7. Copy of
the handed over vehicle’s agreement.
8. Copy of
the blank agreement.
9. Copy of
the of the plain paper receipts.
10. Copy of
the EMI receipts with names of different firms.
11. Copy of
the notices with reference to NOCs.
12. Copy of
the money lender’s list.
13. Copy of
the reply of the Reserve Bank of India dated 14th June 2011.
14. Copies
of the complaints by permit holders.
15. Copies
of the RTI application and order passed by first appellate authority.
16. Copy of
the letter dated 26/04/2011.
17. Copy of
the representations dated May 10, 2011.
18. Copy of
the valuation certificate.
19. Copy of
the Hire purchase agreement by Pawan Credit
Co- operative Society
Petitioners in person
No comments:
Post a Comment