ORDER

A. The Case of the Petitioner:

The Writ Petitioner, M/s.S.S. & Co., is a partnership firm registered with the Registrar of Firms, Karaikudi, vide FR/Karikudi/6/2022. Claiming 18 years of experience of its Managing Partner, it was registered as a Class-I Contractor with the fourth respondent by proceedings dated 18.05.2022 and has since executed more than 70 works without any blemish.

2. The petitioner and the sixth and seventh respondents participated in the Tender dated 19.08.2025. The petitioner was L1 [the Lowest One bidder]. With malafide intention to award the tender to the respondents 6 and 7, the third respondent delayed the opening of the bid, which ought to have been on 30.09.2025.

3. Based on complaints made by the respondents 6 and 7, on 29.10.2025, a communication was issued to the petitioner raising certain queries regarding the partnership, pointing out the discrepancy in the partnership deed regarding the number of partners, which was stated as four in one place and five in another, and the inclusion of minors as partners. The petitioner found that the petitioner's partnership deed, which accompanied the bid, was illegally supplied to the respondents 6 and 7. The petitioner submitted a reply on 02.11.2025, stating that the third respondent had no jurisdiction to question the petitioner's partnership.

4. The petitioner received a communication dated 04.11.2025 from the fourth respondent, which repeated the same allegations and sought an explanation regarding the petitioner's partnership. The petitioner submitted a reply on 08.11.2025, contending that Clause 9 of the Registration Order permits cancellation of registration only if it has been obtained by producing a false or fabricated document.

5. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 14.11.2025 was issued, calling upon the petitioner to explain why the firm's registration should not be cancelled on the ground that minors have been shown in the partnership deed with a 10% profit and loss share. The said show cause notice was challenged in W.P.(MD) No.33192 of 2025, which was disposed of by an order dated 29.01.2026, directing the petitioner to submit an explanation. The petitioner firm executed a clarificatory amendment deed on 24.12.2025, correcting discrepancies regarding the number of partners and clarifying that the minors will be admitted only to the benefits of the partnership. On that basis, the petitioner also submitted a detailed explanation on 31.01.2026.

6. However, the said explanation was not accepted, and the petitioner's registration was cancelled. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. It is contended that the discrepancy noted in the show cause notice has since been rectified by the clarificatory deed. It is further contended that the entire exercise of issuing the show cause notice was without jurisdiction and was also motivated by an oblique motive. No false particulars have been furnished by the petitioner.

B. The Case of the Respondents:

7. The writ petition is resisted by the respondents 1 to 5, who have filed a common counter-affidavit. It is stated that the respondents are entitled to scrutinise the partnership deed even after its registration. As per Section 30 of the Indian Partnership Act 1932, minors cannot be made partners of the firm. In the Deed of Partnership dated 27.01.2022, the children of the Managing Partner, namely, S.Sivaprasad and S.Yuvashica, were made partners with a profit-and loss-sharing ratio of 10% each and a capital contribution of Rs.8,00,000/- each. Therefore, the partnership is invalid. There is no question of amending the illegal partnership, as the amendment deed itself categorically admits the mistake. Therefore, the only course open to the petitioner firm is to re-register the partnership firm afresh and thereafter, apply for fresh registration. The registration, which was done on the basis of the illegal partnership deed, is liable for cancellation.

C. The Arguments :

8. Mr.R.Shanmuga