Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.:- Petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider it for the tender floated on 03.08.2012 for Road Transport Contract from Gohana to Delhi FCI Godown and not to reject its technical bid on the ground that the firm of the petitioner, which is duly registered with the District Registrar of Firms and Societies, Sonepat, should be registered afresh.

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner firm was comprising of two partners, namely, Sunil Khasa and Narender Singh. It came into being on 16.06.2005 as partnership at Will in which it was provided that on the death of any of the partners, the business shall not, ipso facto, stands dissolved but shall be continuing by the legal heirs or representatives of the deceased with the surviving party. The firm was duly registered with the Registrar of Firms, Haryana at Serial No.SNP-45 of 2005. It carried on the business of handling the transport of the respondents as well as for other State procuring agencies. Narender Singh, one of the partners of the firm, died on 07.04.2010 and after his death, his legal heirs, namely, his wife and mother, who are Class-I heirs, joined the business and a fresh partnership deed was executed on 08.04.2010. The Registrar of Firms was accordingly informed and subsequently on 02.09.2011, the necessary amendment in Form-A was carried out on addition of Smt. Savita and Smt. Jogindri as partners.

3. The respondents floated a tender on 03.08.2012 for Road Transport Contract from Gohana to Delhi FCI Godown. The petitioner Firm applied for the tender which comprises of technical bid and price bid. After qualifying the technical bid, the price bid is to be opened and in case its rates are lowest, then the contract is to be awarded. The petitioner deposited earnest money of Rs.9,60,000/- with the respondents for total estimated value of the contract of Rs.4.80 Crores. The petitioner submitted its technical bid as well as the price bid and was apprehensive that its technical bid may not be rejected on account of death of one of its partner.

4. At the time of notice of motion, it was ordered that the technical bid of the petitioner shall not be rejected.

5. In the written statement filed by the respondents, the stand has been taken that in terms of Section 42(c) of the Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), on the death of one of the two partners, the earlier partnership firm stands dissolved, therefore, the petitioner is required to seek new registration after induction of legal heirs of the deceased partner and in the absence of such a procedure having been undertaken, the petitioner is not eligible to be considered in response to the tender inquiry for appointment of Handling and Transport Contractor from Gohana to Delhi FCI godown as it is only a registered partnership firm or a sole proprietorship firm concern or a private limited company or a public limited company which is eligible for applying in response to the tender notice.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no doubt, subject to the contract, the partnership firm is dissolved on the death of one of the two partners in terms of Section 42(c) of the Act, but it is provided in the partnership deed that in case of death of one of the partners, his legal heirs would be inducted as partners in the partnership firm with the intention that it would not amount to dissolution. Thus, Section 42(c) of the Act is not applicable insofar as the requirement of new registration is concerned. In this regard, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Vasant Kotak and others v. Ramniklal Mohanlal Chawda and another, AIR 1998 Supreme Court 877 has been relied upon.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that after the dissolution of the firm in terms of Section 42(c) of the Act where there are only two partners, the surviving partner do not co