1

Serial No. 02

Supplementary List

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA

AT SHILLONG

WP(C) No. 189 of 2018

Date of Decision: 15.02.2021

Shri. Vivek Agarwal & Ors.

Vs. The Secretary, Executive

Committee, Garo Hills

Autonomous District Council

& Ors.

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge

Appearance:

For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) :

Mr. R. Kar, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)

:

Mr. S. Dey, Adv. (For R 1).

Mr. K. P. Bhattacharjee, Adv. with

Mr. H. Abraham, Adv. (For R 2).

i)

Whether approved for reporting in

Yes/No

Law journals etc.:

ii)

Whether approved for publication

in press:

Yes/No

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 13^th June, 2018, notified a decision of the

respondent No. 1 to not renew the Trading License of the said firm

2

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

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