O BALANARAYANAN Vs. REGISTRAR OF FIRMSTRIVANDRUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three petitioners herein along with one R. Prabhakaran constituted a partnership under the name and style 'Polylaminates' and the same was duly registered with the Registrar of Firms, Trivandrum, under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act hereinafter called the Act. While so, by mutual consent the firm was dissolved with effect from l-4-1975 and a deed of dissolution also was executed on 8-3-1976 by all the partners. Public notice of dissolution of the partnership was published in leading vernacular dailies and also in the Kerala Gazette dated 23-3-1976. Notice of dissolution in the prescribed form was sent by R. Prabhakaran, one of the partners, to the Registrar of Firms, the first respondent herein. But thereafter, Sri. R. Prabhakaran left India and his whereabouts were not known. Recently when the first petitioner happened to go to the office of the 1st respondent, he came to know that as there was some defect the notice of dissolution sent by R. Prabhakaran was sent back to him long back on 20-3-1976. Thereafter, the first petitioner sent a copy of the original notice of intimation of the dissolution which had been signed by all the partners without any defect. The 1st petitioner also had sent along with that notice an application praying for condoning the delay, if any, caused in sending . intimation of dissolution. While so, on 19-1-1980, the 1st petitioner received a memo from the 1st respondent stating that the application sent by him was returned and the same may be retransmitted after rectifying the defects noted. Ext. P3 is that memo and the only defect noticed is that the notice was not filed within 15 days from the date of occurrence of the event as contemplated under R.4(2) of the Kerala Partnership (Registration of Firms) Rules, 1959, hereinafter called the Rules.

(2.) In this O.P., the petitioners invoke the exercise of extraordinary powers of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution Of India to declare R.4 (2) of the Rules as void and illegal and also to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to accept Ext. P1 instruction sent by the first petitioner or a copy of the same when presented by the 1st petitioner or other petitioners forthwith under S.68 of the Partnership Act.

(3.) Strongly assailing Ext. P3 order, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the time limit prescribed in sub-rule (2) of R.4 of the Rules is ultra vires as the Act does not give any power to the rule making authority to prescribe time as has been done in sub-rule (2) of R.4.