A partner who has withdrawn from a partnership may not have standing to challenge actions taken by the partnership or the Corporation under the relevant provisions of the Act.

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 :-

"As per partnership deed executed on 1-6-81 and as per clause No. 12 of the deed I give this notice to you all that I do not want to continue as partner in this firm from 27-10-87. Please settle my account and keep it in the books of firm and I will take it when I will need it.Sorry for the inconvenience caused to you.NokhaSd/- Rajendra Prasad Gupta"

20-9-87

4 Bhagwati Devi had addressed a similar letter dated 20-9-87 (Annexure A/1 in CWJC No. 4486 of 1988), to the partners wanting to retire from the partnership. Likewise, Gupteshwar Prasad had addressed his letter dated 20-9-87 (Annexure A/2 in CWJC No. 4486 of 1998), to the other partners of the business withdrawing from the partnership. The partnership business had taken loans from the Corporation. It appears that Surendra Prasad Gupta and his wife (Shashi Gupta, respondent No. 5), had submitted the aforesaid letters (Annexure A series) to the Corporation to take note of the reconstitution of the partnership business. The same was taken note of by the Corporation and passed the impugned order.

5. While assailing the validity of the impugned action of the Corporation, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order (Annexure 1) is wholly without jurisdiction. The resolution is based on the aforesaid letters (Annexure A series) which are not in accordance with the Partnership Act. The Corporation has no authority to deci