Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. It is stated that the petitioner is a registered partnership firm, under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, with Registration No.14 of 1992. Originally, the partnership firm had been constituted with three partners, namely, S.Vadivel, V.Selvaraj and V.Arumugasamy. After the death of S.Vadivel, the partnership firm had been reconstituted, with the surviving partners and it had continued to carry on its regular business.
3. It has been further stated that the reconstituted partnership firm carried on its business in the name and style of "Vadivel Fire Works", manufacturing fire works, crackers, etc. As per the partnership deed, the necessary licence, under the Explosive Rules, in Forms 20 and 21, Arms Act Licence, in Form XI, Central Excise Registration Certificate, Panchayat Union Licence etc. had been applied for and obtained in the name of the partnership firm, represented by V.Selvaraj. The licence for the possession and consumption of sulphur for the use in the manufacture of fire works, issued by the Additional District Magistrate and District Revenue Officer, Virudhunagar, to the partnership firm, had been duly renewed up to 31.12.2009.
4. While so, V.Arumugasamy's brother, namely, V.Selvaraj, had expired, on 15.6.2009. On his death, his wife the second respondent herein had surrendered the licence in the office of the first respondent, without informing V.Arumugasamy, representing the petitioner firm. The death of V.Selvaraj had been informed to the first respondent and an application had also been submitted, on 10.8.2009, to substitute the name of V.Arumugasamy in the place of V.Selvaraj, as the representative of the partnership firm.
5. It has been further stated that the issuance of the necessary licence is governed by
Section 5 of the Arms Act, 1959, and Rule 51 of the Arms Rules, 1962. The grant of licence and its renewal are governed by
Sections 13 and
17 of the Arms Act, 1959. Like wise, Rules 51 and 54 are also relevant for the grant and renewal of licence.
6. It has been further stated that the first respondent had passed an order, dated 4.7.2009, stating that since, the licencee had died, the licence had been cancelled. The first respondent, while passing the said order, had ignored the fact that the licence had been granted in the name of the firm and the deceased V.Selvaraj, was only a partner in the firm. The order had been passed, without notice to the firm and to the petitioner. The order had not been communicated, either to the firm or to the surviving partner of the petitioner partnership firm. The first respondent had not considered the application submitted by the petitioner, on 10.8.2009, for substituting the name of V.Arumugasamy, to represent the petitioner partnership firm.
7. Even though various averments have been made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and a number of grounds had been raised in support of the writ petition, the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the cancellation of the licence, by the first respondent, by his impugned order, dated 4.7.2009, is arbitrary, illegal and void. The said order had been passed by the first respondent, without issuing any notice to the petitioner partnership firm or its surviving partner, namely, V.Arumugasamy.
8. In spite of an application having been made, on 10.8.2009, to substitute the name of V.Arumugasamy, in the place of V.Selvaraj, who had expired, on 15.6.2009, no action had been taken on the said application. Since the licence is an asset of the partnership firm, it cannot be said that the licence would expire on the death of one of the partners of the partnership firm. Even otherwise the cancellation of the licence, unilaterally, without giving an opportunity of hearing to V.Arumugasamy, the surviving partner of the partnership firm, is arbitrary and illegal. Hence, the impugned order of the first respondent is to be set aside.
9. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent the claims made on behalf of the petitioner firm had been denied. The claim that all the necessary licences to run the partnership firm had been issued in the name of the partnership firm, represented by V.Selvaraj, is denied as false. Originally, the licence for possession and consumption of sulphur for the use in the manufacture of fire works had been issued in the name of V.Selvaraj, on behalf of Vadivel fire works and not in the name of the partnership firm, as alleged by the petitioner.
10. It has also been stated that certain disputes had arisen between V.Selvaraj, the husband of the second respondent and one Rajendran and Dhanapal, in respect of the granting of Arms Licence and the No Objection Certificate for Explosives Act Licence. Therefore, civil suits had been filed, in O.S.No.100 of 1993, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sathur and O.S.No.506 of 1993, before the Sub Court, Srivilliputhur, wherein, an order of interim injunction had also been obtained by V.Selvaraj, in I.A.No.786 of 1993.
11. While so, an order had been passed by this Court, on 20.8.1993, in W.P.No.16199 of 1993, directing the first respondent to consider the application of V.Selvaraj, dated 28.5.1993, for the grant of licence, in Form No.II of the Arms Act, 1959 and the rules framed thereunder. Thus, a licence had been issued, with Licence No.169/93, dated 29.9.1993, in favour of Selvaraj, in his individual capacity. Thereafter, since Selvaraj had expired, on 15.6.2009, the licence issued in his name got cancelled. As such, there was no need to give a notice to V.Arumugasamy or to the petitioner partnership firm for the cancellation of the licence.
12. Further, since the licence had been granted in the name of V.Selvaraj, in his individual capacity, on behalf of the petitioner fire works, no notice had been issued, either to the petitioner fire works, or to V.Arumugasamy, who is said to be one of the partners of the petitioner partnership firm. It has also been stated that a licence issued to the second respondent is not on the basis of the successor in interest of the previous licence. Since the licence did not belong to the partnership firm, as alleged by the petitioner, he cannot be said to be an aggrieved party. Hence, the writ petition, filed on behalf of the petitioner partnership firm, is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
13. In the reply affidavit, filed on behalf of V.Arumugasamy, said to be representing the petitioner firm, it has been stated that the licence in question had been granted in the name of the partnership firm and as such, the second respondent does not have any locus standi to surrender the licence given in the name of the partnership firm. The statement made by the second respondent that she has surrendered the licence, to the first respondent, after a show cause notice had been issued to her by the Controller of Explosives is false. The first respondent had passed the impugned order, accepting the surrender made by the second respondent, on 4.7.2009, itself. It has been further stated that the partnership firm had received a number of orders, even prior to the death of the second respondent husband, V.Selvaraj, and the petitioner partnership firm is under an obligation to execute the pending orders. Due to the non-employment caused due to the cancellation of the licence, a number of workers and their families are suffering.
14. In view of the averments made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner firm, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the licence in question, having been issued in the name of the partnership firm, represented by V.Selvaraj, it should not have been cancelled, without an opportunity of hearing having been given to V.Arumugasamy, who was a partner in the said partnership firm.
15. There is nothing on record to show that the licence had been, exclusively, issued in the name of V.Selvaraj. Further, it would not be open to the authorities concerned to cancel the licence, merely based on the statements made by the second respondent. It is not in dispute that the licence had been cancelled, without prior notice having been issued to V.Arumugasamy, and without giving him an opportunity of hearing. Further, it is seen from Form XI that the name and description of the licence is "Vadivel Fire Works' and the name of V.Selvaraj had been entered, as the duly authorised agent.
16. Therefore, there is no doubt that the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 4.7.2009, is liable to be set aside. However, it is made clear that it is open to the first respondent to initiate appropriate proceedings, with regard to the cancellation of the licence, if it is found fit to do so, by following the procedures established by law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to V.Arumugasamy, said to be the surviving partner of the petitioner firm. In such circumstances, the impugned proceedings of the first respondent, dated 4.7.2009, is set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
csh To The District Revenue Officer & Additional District Magistrate, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.