RAJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions have a good deal in common were directed to be heard together and are, therefore, being disposed of by a common judgment. In fact, CWJC No. 4486 of 1998 is consequential to CWJC No. 640 of 1996. I would like first to deal with CWJC No. 640 of 1996, as the facts are being taken from this writ petition, and CWJC No. 4486 of 1998 would be specifically mentioned when facts would be taken from that writ petition. CWJC No. 640 of 1996 is directed against the resolution dated 21-5-88 (Annexure 1), passed by the Regional Manager of Bihar State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), whereby M/s Sri Bhagwatijee Rice Mill (hereinafter referred to as the 'rice mill'), was permitted to be reconstituted. The said resolution is extracted hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference :-"Resolve that M/s. Sri Bhagwatijee Rice Mill is allowed to accept the resignation of the partners Sri Rajendra Gupta, Sri Gupteshwar Prasad and Smt. Bhagwati Devi and further allowed that Sri Surendra Pd. will be the Managing Partner and to include Smt. Shashi Gupta as a new partner of the concern."

(2.) The writ petition is further directed against the consequential order issued bearing Reference No. 405/88-89, dated 24-5-88 (Annexure 1), issued under the signature of Mr. R. Haque, Regional Manager, Patna, notifying the aforesaid resolution.

(3.) The rice mill was ancestral property of the petitioner and was allotted to the share of Gupteshwar Shah, father of the petitioner, in a family partition. Gupteshwar Shah, his wife (Bhagwati Devi), the petitioner (son of Gupteshwar Shah) and respondent No. 4 (Surendra Prasad, the second son of Gupteshwar Shah and full brother of the petitioner herein), had constituted a partnership firm to do the business of the rice mill. Gupteshwar Shah held share to the extent of 30%, his wife to the extent of 10%, the petitioner to the extent of 30%, and respondent No. 4 to the extent of 30% in the partnership business. The partnership deed dated 9-8-93 is marked Annexure 1 to CWJC No. 4486 of 1998. The petitioner, Gupteshwar Prasad and Bhagwati Devi withdrew from the partnership business, surrendering their interest in the business in favour of the respondent No. 4. It appears that respondent No. 4 and his wife (respondent No. 5) reconstituted the partnership business, and accordingly the petitioner had addressed his letter dated 20-9-87 (Annexure A to the counter-affidavit of respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in CWJC No. 4486 of 1988), to the partners which is to the following effect :-