IMPORTANT POINT
The enforcement of fundamental rights can override the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, as the court held that Section 69 of the Act did not act as a bar for the petitioners to seek relief in the enforcement of their fundamental rights.

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioners herein are partners in a firm known as M/S GLR Pharmaceuticals which runs a business on the basis of licenses issued by the concerned Government departments and also under a Trading License issued by the respondent No. 1. The main grievance as set out, apart from also impugning letter dated 11.06.2018, is that the respondent No. 1 vide a general circular dated 13th June, 2018, notified a decision of the respondent No. 1 to not renew the Trading License of the said firm ostensibly because of complaints received from some NGO's. Being aggrieved thereby, this writ petition has been filed before this Court.

2. Mr. R. Kar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners through a firm named M/S GLR Pharmaceuticals had been conducting business, since 2014 under valid licenses issued by the Directorate of Health Services, Municipal License issued by the Tura Municipal Board and Trading License from the GHADC (Respondent No. 1) issued under the Garo Hills District (Trading by Non-Tribals) Regulation, 1957. Learned counsel submits that the initial Partnership Deed as well as a Deed of Retirement dated 08.11.2017, when one of the partners retired have been duly registered before the Office of the Sub-Registrar, West Garo Hills, Tura. He submits that due to business rivalry, persons inimical to the petitioners created problems for their business, and it appears that these persons exerted pressure on the respondents No. 1 and 2, which resulted in the impugned orders dated 11.06.2018 and 13.06.2018 Learned counsel submits that these impugned orders are arbitrary and violative of the principles of Natural Justice, inasmuch as, the petitioners were not given a show cause or were they heard before their issuance. He submits that the impugned letter dated 11.06.2018, issued by the Tura Municipal Board (Respondent No. 2), is illegal on the face of the record as well as the order dated 13.06.2018, which he submits is beyond the scope of law that regulates trading by non-tribals. As such, he submits the impugned orders being patently illegal are liable to be set aside and quashed.

3. Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent No. 1, at the outset has raised questions as to the maintainability of the writ petition by contending that the trading license was issued to the firm and that the firm is not before this Court as petitioner and that moreover, as per Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of Firms as a partner in the firm. He submits that apart from the fact that the firm is not before this Court, the same is also not registered with Registrar of Firms, but it is only registered with the Sub- Registrar. Learned counsel submits that the effect of non-registration and non-joinder of necessary parties has rendered the writ petition unmaintainable in the eye of law and deserves no consideration by this Court.

4. Learned counsel on the other contentions raised, submits that it is not a fact that the trading license has been cancelled, but only that a decision had been taken by the respondent No. 1, in its meeting held on 20.04.2018, to not renew the trading license due to certain complaints lodged by social organizations which were to be ascertained before any further action was to be taken. Learned counsel further submits that the process has not concluded, and the matter is yet to be adjudicated finally as the writ petitioners have in the meantime come before this Court. Learned counsel contends that the writ petition does not contain full averments of the grounds on which equity is sought and as such, the writ petitioners are not entitled to any relief as claimed. Learned counsel also on this aspect has placed reliance in the case of Katra Education Society, Al