RAI BHARAT DAS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 11.9.2006 passed by the respondent No.2. Further a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents Nos. 2 to 3 not to issue or hand over Form MM-11 to the respondent No.10 with respect to the Firm M/s Rai Bharat Das & Brothers and further direct to issue or hand over Form MM-11 to the petitioners who are partners and attorney of the firm M/s Rai Bharat Das & Brothers. Further a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.10 not to interfere in the working of the petitioners.

(2.) The facts arises out of the present writ petition are that one Sri Lalta Prasad Agarwal S/o Late Sri Mahadeo Prasad, Sri Nar Singh Das Agarwal son of Sri Lalta Prasad Agarwal, Sri Ganesh Das Agarwal son of Sri Lalta Prasad Agarwal and Sri Shaym Das Agarwal son of Sri Bharat Das Agarwal constituted a registered firm in the name and style of M/s Rai Bharat Das & Brother, office situated at 84, Jhonstonganj, Allahabad. A mining lease was granted to the aforesaid partners and a lease deed was executed with effect from 18.1.1973 for excavation and transportation of silica sand to area 93.15 hectares situated in village Parduan in Pargana Mau in District of Banda (now Chitrakoot). Sri Lalta Prasad, one of the partner of the aforesaid firm M/s Rai Bharat Das & Brothers died on 27.11.1982 leaving behind Sri Bharat Das Agarwal, Sri Nar Singh Das Agarwal and Sri Ganesh Das Agarwal as his legal heirs and legal representatives. Sri Nar Singh Das Agarwal, Sri Ganesh Das Agarwal and Sri Shayam Das Agarwal, the legal heirs of Late Sri Lalta Prasad Agarwal were already partners of the aforesaid firm and after the death of Sri Lalta Prasad Agarwal, Sri Bharat Das Agarwal, one of his legal heirs became the partner of the aforesaid firm and they were continuing the business in the name and style of the same Firm M/s Rai Bharat Das & Brothers. Sri Nar Singh Das Agarwal one of the partner of the firm died on 4.4.1986 leaving behind his sons Sri Sri Ram Agarwal, Sri Jai Ram Agarwal, Sri Jai Jai Ram Agarwal and Sri Sita Ram Agarwal as his legal heirs and representatives. Out of four brothers only Sri Ram Agarwal was interested in mining business which was carrying on by his father and other partners of the aforesaid firm has relinquished their rights/interest whatsoever with respect to the Firm M/s Rai Bharat Das & Brothers. In such situation, the petitioners become the partners of the aforesaid firm. The aforesaid partners of the firm informed the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for the purposes of issuance of Form MM-11 with respect to the excavation and transportation of silica sand.

(3.) The respondent no.10 approached the respondent No.3 for issuance of Form MM-11 on the basis of power of attorney dated 7.4.2001 executed by the respondents Nos. 6 to 9. As Ram Das Agarwal, Ghanshayam Das Agarwal and Mohan Agarwal are not the partners of the firm and on this basis the respondent No.2 issued Form MM-11 to the respondent No.10. The respondents Nos. 6 and 7 came to know about the irregularities committed by the respondent No.10, the respondent No.6 cancelled the power of attorney on 3.5.2006. The respondent No.7 informed about the withdrawal of the said power of attorney through a letter dated 17.3.2006 to the respondents Nos. 2 and requested him not to issue form MM-11. Petitioner No.3 Sri Rai Bharat Das Agarwal son of Late Sri Lalta Prasad Agrawal, one of the partner has executed a power of attorney in favour of Sri Sri Ram Agarwal, the petitioner No.2 and appointed him his attorney through power of attorney deed dated 27.5.2006 and cancelled the power of attorney executed by his sons. The petitioner No.3 Sri Rai Bharat Das Agarwal informed about the execution of power of attorney in favour of the petitioner No.2 and also about the cancellation of power of attorney. The petitioner No.2 on behalf of the firm approached the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for getting Form MM-11 for the purposes of excavation. The respondent No.10 is not the partner of the aforesaid firm neither he has been authorised by any one of the partners of the said firm, as such, the respondent No.2 in collusion with the respondent No.10 has issued form MM-11. That due to the collusion with the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the respondent No.10 interfering in obtaining the Form MM-11 for the purposes of excavation. The respondent No.10 has got no right to interfere in the business of the petitioners. The petitioners aggrieved by the action of the respondents Nos.2 and 3 approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.38195 of 2006. The said writ petition was finally disposed of by order dated 28.7.2006 with a direction that the petitioners will submit a detail representation before the authorities concerned who will pass a detailed and reasoned order on the basis of the order passed by this Court. A detailed representation was submitted before the respondent No.2.