The Deputy Commissioner acted without jurisdiction in cancelling the firm registration, lacking authority to review under the Indian Partnership Act, rendering the action void.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT SHARMA, J.

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, has been filed seeking the following prayers: -

“It is, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to: -

a) Call for the record of the case;

b) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned illegal orders dated17/02/2014 and 5/1/2015 respectively;

c) Issue a writ of mandamus. directing the respondents to restore and revive the Certificate of Registration of Firm "M/s Universal Promoters and Developers" of the petitioners;

d) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court which may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case;

e) All cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioners.”

2. By way of the present petition, setting aside of orders dated 17.02.2014 and 05.01.2015 have been sought. Vide order dated 17.02.2014, respondent No.3 (Deputy Commissioner, Industries (Firms)) issued an order setting aside and cancelling the Registration of petitioner No.1 (partnership firm), on a complaint/application made by respondent No.5-Ashok Kataria alleging fraud, and subsequently, on an application filed by petitioner No.4 seeking review of the said order, the same was dismissed vide order dated 05.01.2015 passed by respondent No.4, Registrar of Firms. The primary contention on behalf of the petitioners is that the respondent No.4, Registrar of Firms, had no power to cancel the Registration Certificate issued to petitioner No.1-partnership firm.

3. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 17.02.2014 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Firms/respondent No.3 reads thus: -

“E. ORDER

On perusal of the facts, submissions made by the partners, complaint and the records provide a fit case of REVIEW of the registration No. S- 1003/2006 granted by this department on 08.05.2006. It is evident that Smt. Rekha Sharma, from the records that she was not a partner from 31.03.2006 and as such she lacked the capacity to apply as a partner for registration under the Partnership Act, 1932. The above facts clearly reveal that there was a concealment of the facts. Further there is a concealment regarding Mr. Mahinder Kaushik joining the firm with effect from 17.02.2006 yet application introducing his name was filed in this office on 06.12.2010. This is after more than four years. Further, the said application does not bear the signature of Mr. Mahinder Kaushik. When Mr. Mahinder Kaushik had already joined on 17.02.2006. then instead of making declaration and signing of application by Smt. Rekha Sharma who had already retired on 31.03.2006, in the normal and usual course of business this application ought to have been signed by Mr.Mahinder Kaushik on 17.04.2006/20.04.2006.

Filing of the application for deleting the name of Smt. Rekha Sharma and introduction of partner Mr. Mahinder Kaushik was also approved by this office and a note to this effect has been made on the relevant form showing therein the name of Mr Mahinder Kaushik as a partner introduced pr: 17.02.2006. Name of Mr. Mahinder Kaushik as a partner of the firm for the first time has been disclosed to this office vide application dated 06.12.2010, whereas his name ought to have been disclosed in the original application dated 20.04.2006 and a declaration to this effect ought to have been signed by Sh. Mahinder Kaushik. In the application for amendment of the partners/change of partners dated 06.12.2010 Mr. Mahinder Kaushik did