The High Court may direct statutory authorities to expedite pending inquiry proceedings under the Kerala Partnership (Registration of Firms) Rules, 1959, when competing claims regarding firm reconstitution are actively being addressed by those authorities.

JUDGMENT

Petitioners seek for the following reliefs:

“1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to consider and dispose of Form II and Form V applications as is evidenced by Exhibit P5 to P8 and to take a decision in the time frame fixed by this Court.

2. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to allow Form II and Form V application.”

2. Petitioners allege that they had, along with the 3rd respondent, entered into a registered partnership deed for the purpose of carrying out the business under the name and style “Fortune Roto Packs”. After six years the partnership, was allegedly reconstituted and the 3^rd respondent is alleged to have retired from the firm. However, petitioners allege that for reasons beyond their control, the details of retirement and reconstitution could not be included in the register maintained by the 1st respondent. Subsequently, petitioners submitted Form II application as well as Form V application as per Exts.P5 and P7. Despite the above, no action has been initiated. It is in such circumstances that the petitioners have approached this Court seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent wherein it is stated as follows:

“ It is submitted that a partnership firm have been registered with this office as SI.No.4578/ namely, Fortune Roto Packs, under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 on 31.10.2016. As per the records of this oltice, the petitioners along with Mr.K.M Shihabudheen are the partners of the above firm, Mr.K.M Shihabudheen have filed a complaint with this office as the other two partners were trying to reconstitute and cease him arbitrarily from the above firm without his knowledge or consent. In the meanwhile the petitioners have submitted the Form V notice, about the ceasing of Mr.K.M Shihabudheen from the firm w.e.f 07.07.2022.

It is submitted that, based on the complaint filed by Mr.K.M Shihabudheen and the Form V notice submitted by the petitioners, this respondent have initiated inquiry proceedings as per Rule 8 of the Kerala Partnership (Registration of Firms) Rules, 1959. As part of this inquiry, this respondent have already sent a letter to Mr.&.M Shihabudheen to produce documents justifying his arguments and the proceedings are ongoing. Therefore, most humbly request to allow sufficient time to complete the same.”

4. Even though the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent sought time to file a counter affidavit, I am of the view that, considering the statement filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, this writ petition can be disposed of.

5. As is noted from the above extracted portion in the statement of the 1^st respondent, the complaint filed by the 3^rd respondent and the Form V notice submitted by the petitioners, are both the subject matter of the enquiry proceedings under Rule 8 of the Kerala Partnership (Registration of Firms) Rules 1959. Steps have also been initiated, calling upon the 3^rd respondent to produce the necessary documents to justify his contentions. In such circumstances, it is only appropriate that a direction is issued to the 1st respondent to conclude the proceedings already initiated, which would satisfy the grievance raised by the petitioners as well as that of the 3^rd respondent.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to conclude the proceedings already initiated under Rule 8 of the Kerala Partnership (Registration of Firms) Rules 1959, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within an outer period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after granting an opportunity of being heard