VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiffs have filed the present suit praying for the following reliefs:

(2.) THE Defendants while resisting the suit admitted that the Plaintiffs were the highest bidders at the auction and that mining lease qua Khasra No. 117/1 was granted in their favour view agreement dated 25.6.1990 for a period of five years beginning from 7.5.1990. It was pleaded that on the objection raised by the Forest Department, the land comprising of Khasra No. 117/1 was found to be forest land and could not be broken for mining purposes without the permission/approval of the Central Government. Therefore, the lease granted to the Plaintiffs was cancelled with effect from 6.5.1991 in public interest and on the representation of the Plaintiffs themselves alternative site comprising of khasra Nos. 123, 125 and 171 was allotted to the Plaintiffs to undertake mining operations. It was further averred that no financial loss whatsoever was suffered by the Plaintiffs since alternative site was allotted and Plaintiffs have been carrying out mining operations in such alternative site.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Defendants at the very out -set has raised a legal objection as to the maintainability of the suit. It has been contended that since the lease was granted to a partnership firm and the Plaintiffs are partners, the suit is hit by Section 69 of the Partnership Act (for short: the Act) for want of registration. Section 69(2) of the Act provides: