[1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

(1)

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11059/2011

M/s. Balaji Marble Mines Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

(2)

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9873/2011

Kanaram Burdak Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Writ Petitions under Article 226

of the Constitution of India.

Date of Order:

July 25, 2013.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA, J.

Mr. Kamal Dave for the petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No. 11059 of 2011

Mr. Rajesh Joshi for the petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No. 9873 of 2011 and for respondent No.6 in

SBCWP No.11059 of 2011

Mr. Anand Purohit, Additional Advocate General, assisted

by Mr. Pradhuman, for the State

Mr. Dinesh Mehta for Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dhariwal in both

the writ petitions.

Mr. Mahesh Thanvi for Mr. Rajhand Upadhyay and Mr.

Ranveer Singh in both the writ petitions.

BY THE COURT:

Adjudication in both these writ petitions

hovers around a common lis, and therefore, both are

heard together and are disposed of by a common order at

this stage with the consent of all the parties.

Succinctly stated, the facts which are

common in both these petitions are that M/s. Balaji Marble

[2]

Mines, Makrana, a registered partnership firm, having five

partners, viz., Mukesh Kumar Rinva, Bhanwarlal Aukna,

Bhanwarlal Choudhary, Rakesh Kumar Dhariwal and Kana

Ram Burdak (Petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9873

of 2011) started business of marble mining and trading.

The partnership deed was duly registered with the

Registrar of Firms on 17^th of November 2008. As

transpired from the averments in the petition, uptil March

2009 the firm continued its pursuit of the business of

mining and trading of marble. On 25^th of April 2009,

there was some alleged special event facilitating change in

the constitution of the firm, which is the genesis of this

litigation. As pleaded in the writ petition, on 25^th of April

2009, out of the five partners of the firm, two partners

viz., Kana Ram Burdak and Rakesh Kumar Dhariwal

decided to call it a day and with a view to retire from the

firm executed a partnership dissolution deed on the same

day. The said dissolution deed was signed by all the

partners and thereafter all the partners including the

retiring partners submitted prescribed Form “E” with the

Registrar of Firms, Nagaur on 14^th of May 2009. The

effect of submission of Form “E” changed the previous

entry about the firm on 14^th of May 2009. When the

change in constitution of the firm as a consequence of

retirement of two partners came into offing, the requisite

[3]

amount of the share of both the retiring partners was paid

to them. In support whereof, the Bank statement of the

firm is placed on record. It is also pleaded in the writ

petition that after completion of the formalities of

retirement of two partners, a supplementary deed was

executed by the remaining partners on 1^st of June 2009.

It appears that there was some sense of discord amongst

the original partners of the firm and the contentious issue

apparently was the retirement deed and the subsequent

events thereof. From the averments contained in the writ

petition it can be conveniently churned out that

respondent Rakesh Dhariwal was not happily disposed

with the chain of events, and therefore, he made an

endeavor to solicit information from the Mining Engineer,

Ajmer under the Right to Information Act, pursuant to

retirement deed and Form “E” submitted in this behalf.

In response thereto, the Mining Engineer divulged him the

requisite information on 24^th

of November 2009.

Reiterating the sequence of events that change in the

constitution of the firm has taken place in strict adherence

of law, it is detailed in the writ petition that the

respondent Rakesh Dhariwal though solicited information

under the RTI Act but the amount paid to him by the firm

of hi