K ARUMUGASAMY Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE SIVAKASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts in this case are very simple. THE petitioner obtained a Form L4 licence under the Central Excise Act and the rules framed thereunder for the manufacture of safety matches under the name and style of swastik Match Works which was granted to him on 9-1-1976. It has been renewed from time to time on 30-9-1979, 26-11-1982 and 16-11-1985. As it is, it has its currency till 31-12-1990. It appears that the petitioner had no experience in this line and therefore requests the second respondent in this writ petition to join him. THEreafter, on 3-8-1978, the Swastik Match Works Factory started manufacturing matches. A partnership consisting of four persons was formed on 30-8-1980 consisting of the writ petitioner, his sister, his wife and the second respondent. This partnership was to come into effect on 3-8-1978. THE second respondent, on his own, seems to have started four other similar match factories. THEreafter, differences arose between the parties as a result of which on 31-3-1984, a release deed was executed by the wife and sister of the writ petitioner who were paid large sums of money in consideration of the release. Consequent to their going out of the partnership, on 1-4-1984, a new partnership was formed consisting of the writ petitioner and the second respondent. On 28-1-1986 O. S. 24 of 1986 was filed on the file of the Sub Court , srivilliputtur, by the second respondent for an injunction restraining the writ petitioner from carrying on business. Pending the suit I. A. 72 of 1986 was preferred. Again, another application I. A. 76 of 1986 was preferred for direction to Central Excise authorities for the issue of banderoles. This I. A. 76 of 1986 was allowed on 30-1-1986 by the learned Subordinate Judge whereupon i. A. 80 of 1986 was filed by the writ petitioner for stay. But that was not granted. THE direction against him in I. A. 76 of 1986 was questioned in C. R. P. 341 of 1986. This court, by order dated 4. 2. 1986, granted interim stay. On 12. 2. 1986 the C. R. P. was allowed and the matter was remitted to the court below for fresh disposal. An interlocutory application under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act was taken out in O. S. 24 of 1986 by the writ petitioner. While the matter stood thus, the writ petitioner issued a notice on 5-3-1986 to the second respondent and third respondent for arbitration and also stating that the partnership would stand dissolved on and from 31-3-1986. To this there was a reply by respondents 2 and 3 on 15-3-1986. On 19-3-1986 the L4 licence issued under the central Excise Act was amended by the first respondent. Questioning that the present writ petition has come to be preferred, however, on 4. 6. 1986, O. S. 88 of 1986 has been filed for dissolution of the partnership as well as rendition of accounts.

(2.) THE only complaint, for the limited purpose of the writ petition by the learned Advocate General appearing for the petitioner is that before the impugned order dated 19-3-1986 came to be passed amending the licence and including the names of the second and third respondents. No notice was, however, issued to the petitioner. I may state that the third respondent is none other than the mother of the second respondent. According to him, on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, this order is liable to be set aside. Had only a notice been given to the petitioner, he would have drawn the attention of the authorities to the fact that the partnership no longer exists in view of the pendency of the civil proceedings. THEn again, by notice dated 5. 3. 1986 he had made his unequivocal declaration for dissolution and again O. S. 88 of 1986 was filed by him for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts. THErefore, it has caused immense prejudice and he prays that the writ petition be allowed.