The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rule-making authority does not have the power to prescribe time limits for filing statements, intimations, and notices under the Indian Partnership Act.

1. The three petitioners herein along with one R. Prabhakaran constituted a partnership under the name and style 'Polylaminates' and the same was duly registered with the Registrar of Firms, Trivandrum, under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act hereinafter called the Act. While so, by mutual consent the firm was dissolved with effect from 1-4-1975 and a deed of dissolution also was executed on 8-3-1976 by all the partners. Public notice of dissolution of the partnership was published in leading vernacular dailies and also in the Kerala Gazette dated 23-3-1976. Notice of dissolution in the prescribed form was sent by R. Prabhakaran, one of the partners, to the Registrar of Firms, the first respondent herein. But thereafter, Sri. R. Prabhakaran left India and his whereabouts were not known. Recently when the first petitioner happened to go to the office of the 1st respondent, he came to know that as there was some defect the notice of dissolution sent by R. Prabhakaran was sent back to him long back on 20-3-1976. Thereafter, the first petitioner sent a copy of the original notice of intimation of the dissolution which had been signed by all the partners without any defect. The 1st petitioner also had sent along with that notice an application praying for condoning the delay, if any, caused in sending. intimation of dissolution. While so, on 19-1-1980, the 1st petitioner received a memo from the 1st respondent stating that the application sent by him was returned and the same may be retransmitted after rectifying the defects noted. Ext. P3 is that memo and the only defect noticed is that the notice was not filed within 15 days from the date of occurrence of the event as contemplated under R.4 (2) of the Kerala Partnership (Registration of Firms) Rules, 1959, hereinafter called the Rules.

2. In this O.P., the petitioners invoke the exercise of extraordinary powers of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution Of India to declare R.4 (2) of the Rules as void and illegal and also to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to accept Ext. P1 instruction sent by the first petitioner or a copy of the same when presented by the 1st petitioner or other petitioners forthwith under S.68 of the Partnership Act.

3. Strongly assailing Ext. P3 order, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the time limit prescribed in sub-rule (2) of R.4 of the Rules is ultra vires as the Act does not give any power to the rule making authority to prescribe time as has been done in sub-rule (2) of R.4.

4. Therefore, the only question that arises for determination in this O.P. is whether that portion of sub-rule (2) of R.4 prescribing time limit, namely 15 days from the date of the occurrence of the event, for every statement, or notice relating to a firm under S.60, 61, 62, 63(1) and 63(2) of the Act is ultra vires the Act.

5. R.4(2) reads:

"(2). Every statement, intimation or notice relating to a firm, under S.60, 61, 62, 63(1) or 63(2) of the Act shall be sent or given to the Registrar together with the maximum fees prescribed in the Schedule to the Act, within 15 days from the date of occurrence of the event referred to in such statement, intimation or notice."

Under S.63 of the Indian Partnership Act when a change occurs in the constitution of a registered firm, any incoming, continuing or outgoing partner, and when a registered firm is dissolved, any person who was a partner or person specially authorised in this behalf, may give notice to the Registrar of such change or dissolution specifying the date thereof; and the Registrar shall make a record of the notice in the entry relating to the firm in the Register of Firms, and shall file the notice along with the statement relating to the firm filed under S.59. On a reading of this section, it is very clear that the provisions therein are intended to benefit and protect, the interest of the individual partners. Rule making power has been given under S.7