A.N. Varma, J. - (1.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, we are disposing of this petition finally. The petitioner was at one time engaged in money lending business. On the coming into force of U.P. Regulation of Money Lending Act, 1976, the petitioner applied for and was granted a certificate dated 15 -12 -1976 which was valid till 12 -12 -1977. On 26 -6 -1977 in compliance with the provisions of the Act, the petitioner sent an intimation in writing to the concerned officer under the Act stating that he has discontinued money lending business from 6 -4 -1977. A similar intimation was also sent to the income tax authorities, according to the assertions made by the petitioner. Nothing happened for years together until 1984 when the petitioner was served by the Registrar, Money Lending, Allahabad, a series of notices asking the petitioner, firstly, to deposit the compounding fee for the intervening years, and, secondly, to surrender his licence/certificate for the purpose of the same being cancelled. Among the numerous notices sent to the petitioner, there was one dated 6 -11 -1984 true copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure 7 to the petition. This notice contained a shocking note stating that a copy of the notice may be sent to the Station Officer, Kotwali, Allahabad, with the direction that he should continue to pressurise the petitioner into surrendering his licence and further that till he does so, the Station Officer should continue to exert pressure on him. The direction was, to say the least, most improper and reprehensible. It betrays an attitude on the part of the officer issuing the notice of absolute vindictiveness.
(2.) YET another notice was issued to the petitioner some time in February, 1985. This notice is dated 31 -1 -1985. It repeats the contents of the earlier notices but directs the Station Officer, Kotwali, Allahabad to produce the petitioner before the Registrar, Money Lending, Allahabad. This notice further confirms that the authorities were out to harass the petitioner to the extreme. A counter -affidavit has been filed in which attempt has been made to justify these notices on the allegation that the petitioner had not intimated the Registrar, Money Lending that he had stopped doing money lending business from 6 -4 -1977. In paragraph 8 of his rejoinder -affidavit the petitioner has categorically reiterated that he did give notice to the respondent No. 1, the Registrar, Money Lending, informing him in writing of his having suspended business from June, 1977 and that the notice had also been received by the Department. The petitioner repeats the assertion that a similar intimation had also been sent to the Income Tax Officer 'C' Ward, Allahabad. In order to give yet another opportunity to the learned Standing Counsel, this Court passed an order on 9 -7 -1990 asking the Standing Counsel to file a supplementary counter -affidavit within two weeks and no more. Despite that order, the respondents have not chosen to file any supplementary counter affidavit with the result that the assertions made by the petitioner in paragraph 8 of the rejoinder affidavit have remained uncontroverted. The assertions made in that paragraph are clear and categorical. The petitioner emphatically states that he had in terms of the statute given the notice of suspension of money lending business six months in advance as contemplated by law. We accept that statement as correct.
(3.) IN view of the position mentioned above, it is apparent that the impugned notices are wholly unsustainable. We are also constrained to observe that there was an element of harassment in the entire exercise of issuing the notices and thereafter asking the police authorities to pressurize the petitioner into submission. We strongly disapprove of this kind of action on the part of the respondents. It is an undisguised negation of the rule of law. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. All the notices challenged by means of this petition are quashed. The notice dated 31 -1 -1985 annexed to the affidavit filed with the amendment application is also quashed. The direction given by the first respondent to the police authorities to take any action against the petitioner also goes and is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to his costs from the respondents.;