ORAL ORDER

1. The present Special Civil Application is filed praying for the following reliefs:-

“26a. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and direct the Respondents:

i. To forthwith record, in due compliance of Section 63(1) of the Act, the notice of change of constitution of the Petitioner Firm in the entry relating to the Petitioner firm in the Register of Firms maintained by the Respondent and to file the said notice along with the statement relating to the Petitioner firm filed under Section 59;

ii. To provide a copy of the duly updated entry relating to the Petitioner Firm in the Register of Firms maintained by the Respondent;

b. interim relief and ad-interim relief in terms of prayer Para 26(a);

c. for such other and further reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require; and d. that costs be provided for;”

2. It is submitted by Ms. Prachiti V. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner Firm was constituted in the year 1993 by a Deed of Partnership dated 04.08.1993. That thereafter, reconstitution of the Firm was done on 09.04.2001 wherein 8 partners remained. She submits that thereafter in October, 2006 the Firm came to be registered with the respondent Registrar of Firms, Surat. She further submits that on 01.04.2008, the petitioner Firm was again reconstituted wherein one partner Mr. Madan Mohan Periwal retired from the Firm and other 7 partners as per the reconstituted deed dated 09.04.2001, continued to remain partners of the said Firm. The petitioner Firm admitted one Mr. Harikishan Daga as the eighth partner. She submits that thereafter, a meeting of the partnership Firm was held on 19.02.2013 and in the said meeting, out of all the partners, 4 partners came to be expelled. That thereafter show-cause notice was issued to the expelled partners of the petitioner Firm to show-cause as to why they should not be permanently expelled from the Partnership Firm. As no reply came to be filed to the said show-cause notice, the petitioner Firm in its meeting held on 30.03.2013 has permanently expelled 4 partners. Accordingly, the petitioner Firm came to be reconstituted w.e.f. 26.4.2013. She submits that the reconstitution of the petitioner Firm has to be reported to the respondent Registrar of Firms who in terms of the provisions of Section 63(1) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 [“Act of 1932” for short] has to update the register concerning the petitioner Firm to reflect the correct constitution of the petitioner Firm. The said reconstitution came to be informed to the respondent Registrar of Firms by letter dated 14.10.2013 accompanied by a Form-E duly notarized under the provisions of Section 63 of the Act of 1932. She submits that thereafter, the respondent Registrar of Firms has not taken any action on the same. She submits that Section 63 of the Act of 1932 mandates the Registrar to make the necessary changes as and when intimated by the Firm. She, therefore, submits that the respondent Registrar of Firms be directed to take action in compliance of Section 63 of the Act of 1932 regarding change of constitution of the petitioner Firm.

3. Mr. Bharat Vyas, learned AGP appearing for the respondent State submits, on instructions, that though it has been averred in the petition that the Form-E has been submitted by the petitioner Firm in October 2013, however, the same has not been received by the respondent Registrar of Firms as per the record maintained at its office, i.e. Inward Register. He, therefore, submits that no action can be taken unless the said documents are received by the respondent Registrar of Firms.

4. Ms. Prachiti V. Shah, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has annexed the track record of the Registered A.D. Post whereby the Form-E was sent to the Registrar of Firms, which shows that the said documents were delivered on 17.10.2013.

5. Consid