The deliberate suppression of material facts, misrepresentation, and misleading statements disqualified the petitioners from obtaining relief. The liability of partners even after retirement until public notice is given and the need for full and true disclosure of facts to obtain relief were emphasized.

B.K. Sharma, J.

1. Amidst allegations and counter allegations of misrepresentation and suppression of facts on the part of the parties involved, all the writ petitions raising the same issue on same cause of action have been heard together.

2. While the first three writ petitions, namely WP (C) Nos. 3543, 3544 and 3546 of 2008 were filed and moved on 13.8.2008, the other three writ petitions namely WP (C) Nos. 3740, 3741 and 3742 of 2008 have been filed on 26.8.2008 and have been moved today (27.8.2008). The respective dates of filing of the writ petitions have been indicated as the same has a bearing in view of the submission made by the learned Counsel representing the Respondent council that the writ Petitioners while moving the first three writ petitions withheld their proper identity and relevant facts as was prevalent on that day and thereby not only got the writ petitions entertained, but also obtained interim relief.

3. In all the six writ petitions, three partnership firms are involved two of which are represented by one Sri Ranbir Singh Gandhi and in the remaining one by Sri Charanjit Singh Gandhi describing each one of them as one of the principal partners apart from other four partners. Sri Charanjit Singh Gandhi is the son of Ranbir Singh Gandhi and both the father and son are partners of all the three Petitioner firms.

4. The challenge made in the first three writ petitions is the decision of the Respondent council to terminate the contracts awarded to the Petitioners. Further prayer made is for a direction restraining the council from entering into any fresh contract. Be it stated here that the work involved is extraction, handling and transportation of Bamboo. In the subsequent three writ petitions the challenge is the decision and the communication thereof cancelling the contracts, about which the Petitioners allegedly came to know in the proceeding of the first three writ petitions when the council made the same known to them.

5. As in the subsequent three writ petitions filed on 26.8.2008 in the first three writ petitions filed by the same Petitioners on 13.8.2008, it has been stated that they are all duly registered partnership firms. Further statement made in all the six writ petitions is that the individual private Respondent who was initially one of the partners has retired from the partnership firm. Such statements are admittedly contrary to records emphasizing on which the learned Counsel for the council emphatically submitted that the same is by way of deliberate suppression of material facts to mislead the court. However, learned Counsel for the Petitioners has tried to justify the same as a genuine mistake in view of the fact that the applications for registration were pending with the authority.

6. The above aspect of the matter leads to two vital aspects of the matter, very crucial for determination of the rights and contentions raised in the writ petitions and the very basis on which the writ petitions are structured. At the first instance, the first three writ petitions filed on 13.8.2008 although were filed with the statement and identity that the writ Petitioners are duly registered partnership firms, but in fact they were not. Secondly, although it is their stand that the private Respondent in each of the writ petitions has retired from the partnership form as one of the partners, but it is revealed from the documents produced by the learned Counsel as well as from their additional affidavit that not only the firm was registered only on 22.8.2008 i.e. after filing of the first three petitions on 13.8.2008, but such registration is also showing the purported retired partner i.e. the private Respondent as one of the partners of the partnership firm.

7. Further it is also revealed that Shri Charanjit Singh, one of the partners of the Petitioner firms, by his letter dated 12.8.2008 addressed to the Registrar of Firms & Societies while making the request for issuance of the Registration Certifica