SUJARI MAL GADIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner No. 1 M/s. Sujan Mal Gadia, a partnership firm and petitioner No. 2 Prakash Gadia who claims to be its proprietor have jointly filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 14-5-2002 passed by Executive Engineer (Head Office), Office of the Chief Engineer PWD, Rajasthan and the further consequential order dated 14-5-2002 passed by the same authority. While in the first order, the request for transferring the registration as a 'A' Class contractor of the Public Works Department made in the name of proprietorship firm M/s. Sujan Mal Gadia in favour of petitioner No. 2 Prakash Gadia was denied, but in the second order, it was directed that the registration of such firm was made in the name of Shri Sajan Mal Gadia as its sole proprietor and with his death on 6-1-90, the registration cannot be transferred in favour of Shri Prakash Gadia on the basis of will dated 8-12-88 because the registration as such can be merely treated as a licence and not a property and therefore is not capable of being transferred. The aforesaid registration was therefore ordered to be cancelled.

(2.) I have heard Shri Mahendra Shah, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Harshvardhan Nandwana, the learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State.

(3.) Shri Mahendra Shah, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that when the father "of the petitioner had all rights in relation to the proprietorship firm M/s. Sujan Mal Gadia in his favour, he is entitled to retain the same, which was bequeathed in his favour under a will executed by his father. The respondents have acted arbitrarily in refusing to transfer the registration taking an illogical view that it could not be considered as a property. Shri Mahendra Shah argued that the registration of the firm being in existence since 21-8-1989, it has acquired a very high amount of goodwill in the work of civil construction having successfully executed large number of contracts. The goodwill would certainly have a value therefore registration of the firm cannot be cancelled by insisting upon the petitioner to secure another registration. He has therefore prayed that the impugned orders passed by the respondents be quashed and set aside as arbitrary and unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.