The main legal point established in the judgment is that a partnership firm's collective decision-making process can justify a delay in filing an appeal, and a writ petition can be maintainable on payment of a single court fee. Additionally, compliance with statutory formalities and valid consent to operate are crucial in challenging closure orders related to business operations.

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.

Re : CAN No. 11820 of 2016

1. This Miscellaneous Appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation. There was 96 days’ delay in filing the appeal.

2. Reason for the delay has been explained by the appellants in their application for condonation of delay.

3. It is stated therein that 13 petitioners are all partners of the partnership firm who are running the brick field business in the name and style as Ashli Bricks. Since no individual of the said partnership business could take the ultimate decision for filing this appeal for challenging the order passed by the writ court, some delay was caused.

4. Ultimately such decision for preferring an appeal was taken by the appellants/petitioners at a point of time when the time for preferring the appeal expired. However, immediately after such decision was taken by the appellants/petitioners, they applied for the certified copy of the impugned order dated 13th July, 2016 on 28th September, 2016. Requisites for obtaining the certified copy of the said order was put in on 4th November, 2016; i.e. the day when requisites to be put in by the appellants, was notified. The certified copy of the impugned order was made ready for delivery on 7th November, 2016 and immediately thereafter, the memorandum of appeal was prepared and the instant appeal was filed on 16th November, 2016.

5. It is true that where decision for preferring an appeal cannot be taken by an individual, and decision for preferring an appeal depends upon the decision of numerous persons, some time is required for taking the ultimate decision for filing an appeal before the appellate forum.

6. This is exactly what happened in the present case. As such, we feel that the delay in filing this appeal has been sufficiently explained by the appellants/petitioners in this application for condonation of delay.

7. Accordingly, we condone the delay.

8. Let the appeal now be registered.

9. The application for condonation of delay is disposed of.

Re : M.A.T. No. 1962 of 2016

10. Immediately after the delay in filing this appeal was condoned, we are invited by the learned counsel appearing for the parties to dispose of the appeal itself on merit.

11. We are informed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that all papers which are necessary for disposal of the appeal are annexed to the stay application.

12. As such, we have decided to dispose of the appeal itself on merit on the papers available before us by dispensing with the requirement of filing paper books in this appeal.

13. Let us now consider the merit of the instant appeal in the facts of the present case.

14. Admittedly the appellants are running a brick field in the name and style of Ashli Bricks. The appellants claim that they carry on the said business in co-partnership. The private respondent nos. 10 to 56 claimed themselves to be partners of the said partnership in which the appellants are also partners. The private respondents claim that they hold 60% share in the partnership business. It is alleged by the private respondents that they being the majority partners of the said partnership business, have decided not to run the said business without any valid quarry permit and order of conversion for change of classification of the land as per law. Those respondents complained that the writ petitioners are carrying on the said business in the name and style of Ashli Bricks without obtaining valid quarry permit from the concerned authority and without obtaining any order of conversion of the classification of the land from the competent authority.

15. Earlier a writ petition being W.P. No. 36984 (W) of 2013 was moved by those private respondents before this Court complaining that the appellants herein are carrying on the said business of brick field in the name and style of Ashli Bricks without obtaining valid quarry permit from the concerned authority and without obtaining any order of conversion for change of classification of the land on which suc