ORDER :

Initially, a quarry lease, over 11 hectares of land, in Sy.No.6 of Veeluparthy Village, Vepada Mandal, Vizianagaram District, was granted in favour of Sri Ch. Srinivasa Rao, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 4th respondent’), for the period 21.05.2009 to 20.05.2019. During the pendency of this lease, a Firm known as M/s. Sri Ganesh Sai Granites and Minerals, was constituted by way of a Deed of Partnership dated 05.02.2015. This Firm was registered with the Registrar of Firms, Visakhapatnam, as Firm No.164/2015 on 07.02.2015. The said quarry lease was brought into the Firm and a fresh lease was also granted on 18.04.2015, in favour of the Partnership Firm to the extent of the unexpired portion of the lease.

2. While the matter stood thus, certain disputes arose between the partners of the Firm. This Firm had initially been constituted with 9 partners, including the 4th respondent. Thereafter, Sri K. Ramana Rao, the 2nd petitioner in W.P.No.4565 of 2019 and W.P.No.15614 of 2022,(hereinafter referred to as 2nd petitioner) had filed a complaint before the IV Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam in Crime No.265 of 2017, on 18.06.2017, complaining that the 4th respondent had created a deed of reconstitution of Firm dated 01.01.2016 by forging the signatures of the remaining eight partners and sought action to be taken against the 4th respondent. An arbitration application was also filed before the XII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which was numbered as AOP No.540 of 2017, and is still pending before the trial Court.

3. The 2nd petitioner, said to be acting on behalf of the other partners, had also filed a complaint dated 22.12.2017 before the Registrar of Firms, Visakhapatnam, setting out these details and requesting the said Registrar of Firms not to deal with any reconstituted Deed of Partnership that may be presented by the 4th respondent.

4. It appears that the 4th respondent had presented a reconstituted deed of Partnership dated 01.01.2016 before the Registrar of Firms and the same was registered by the Registrar of Firms on 12.09.2018. Having come to know of this registration, the 2nd petitioner, said to be acting on behalf of other partners, had approached the Registrar of Firms again on 16.03.2019 seeking an enquiry on rectification of the Register of Firms, under Section 64 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 read with Rules 7 and 8 of the A.P. Partnership (Registration of Firms) Rules, 1951.

5. Thereafter, W.P.No.4565 of 2019 has been filed by the remaining eight partners, before this Court, on the ground that the Registrar of Firms was not conducting an enquiry and was not rectifying the Register of Firms as required under Section 64 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 read with the relevant Rules. This Court by an order dated 12.06.2019 had suspended the certificate of registration given by the Registrar of Firms, initially for a period of four weeks. This order of suspension was extended from time to time until 22.02.2020.

6. While these disputes were going on between the parties, the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, Vizianagaram, had initiated action for recovery of certain dues, which resulted in issuance of a demand notice dated 27.10.2018 for a sum of Rs.81,74,425/-. Aggrieved by this demand notice, the 1st petitioner-Firm represented by the 2nd petitioner had moved a revision before the Government. The 4th respondent, had also sought to implead himself in the said revision contending that he was the Managing Partner of the Firm and that he should be heard before any further orders are passed. This revision was disposed of by the Government on 09.01.2020 reducing the demand to Rs.25,93,025/-. The said amount is said to have been paid by the 2nd Petitioner and other partners. The Government, while disposing of the revision, had observed that the question of ownership of the Firm would abide by the result of W.P.No.4565 of 2019. The 4th