Hon'ble LODHA, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioner, a registered partnership firm has assailed the validity of the order dated 18.5.09 passed by the Registrar of Firms, Jaisalmer ("Registrar") in exercise of the power conferred under Section 64 of the Partnership Act, 1932 (in short "the Act"), cancelling the orders dated 7.2.05 and 13.10.06 recording the changes occurred in the constitution of the firm in the Registrar of firms.

2. The relevant facts in nutshell are that the petitioner, a partnership firm, engaged in business of excavation and sale of granite, stones and other related goods was duly registered by the Registrar under the provisions of Section 58 of the Act. A certificate of registration was also issued on 7.3.03.

3. As per the partnership deed dated 3.3.03, the firm was consisting of eight partners namely, Eklavya Singh, Prithvi Raj, Prahalad Rai Tak, Kishore Kumar, Naresh Kumar, Devender Kumar, Chandra Shekhar and Raj Sethia.

4. On 17.1.05, the petitioner firm made an application to the Registrar for recording of alteration in constitution of the firm due to retirement of three partners namely, Chandra Shekhar, Prithvi Raj and Kishore Kumar and induction of one new partner Smt. Savitri Devi. The application was accompanied by deed of reconstitution of partnership. After considering the relevant documents, the changes asked for were permitted by the Registrar vide order dated 7.2.05 and accordingly, the changes in the constitution of the firm were recorded in the Register of Firms maintained by the Registrar.

5. Thereafter, due to change of status of the partners of the firm, on account of retirement of one of the partners, Mr. Eklavya Singh, the respondent No. 1 herein, the petitioner firm again made an application along with relevant documents including deed of reconstitution of partnership firm, for necessary alteration and accordingly, the changes were recorded by the Registrar vide order dated 13.10.06.

6. The respondent No. 1 who was admittedly one of the partners of the petitioner firm initially constituted, submitted an appeal before the Registrar on 23.4.09, for cancellation of alleged new registration dated 13.10.06 and 7.2.05 and for restoration of the original registration No. 14/2/03 dated 7.3.03.

7. The Registrar sent a notice dated 30.4.09 to the partners of the petition firm directing them to furnish information/explanation on certain points as set out in the notice so also to produce certain documents. In response thereto, the petitioner firm vide communication dated 1.5.09 requested the Registrar to first supply to the petitioner firm the copy of the application submitted by the respondent No. 1 and the documents submitted in support thereof. The petitioner firm also applied for copies of these documents submitted by the respondent No.1, under the provisions of the Right to Information Act and deposited the amount requisite through postal order. It is alleged that the documents asked for were not supplied to the petitioner firm instead the Registrar proceeded to pass an order dated 18.5.09 without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner firm and its partners, declaring the changes in the constitution of the partnership firm effected vide order dated 7.2.05 (wrongly mentioned in the order impugned as 17.2.05) and 13.10.06 as void ab initio and declaring the original registration as on 7.3.03 as valid, restored the same. Hence, this petition.

8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned passed by the Registrar is ex facie against the provision of law and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that changes in the constitution of the firm were recorded by the Registrar in the Register of Firms vide order dated 7.2.05 and 13.10.06, on being satisfied that the provisions of Section 58 of the Act stand only complied with and therefore, no jurisdiction was left with the Registrar to alter the entries in exercise of the power conferred u/S. 64

Click Here to Read the rest of this document