9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (7) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... second respondent in this writ petition to join him. Thereafter, on 3-8-1978, the Swastik Match Works Factory started manufacturing matches. A partnership consisting of four persons was formed on 30-8-1980 consisting of the writ petitioner, his sister, his wife and the second respondent. This partnership was to come into effect on 3-8-1978. The second respondent, on his own, seems to have started four other similar match factories. Thereafter, differences arose between the parties as a result of which on 31-3-1984, a release deed was executed by the wife and sister of the writ petitioner who were paid large sums of money in consideration of the release. Consequent to their going out of the partnership, on 1-4-1984, a new partnership was for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partnership as well as rendition of accounts. 2. The only complaint, for the limited purpose of the writ petition by the learned Advocate General appearing for the petitioner is that before the impugned order dated 19-3-1986 came to be passed amending the licence and including the names of the second and third respondents. No notice was, however, issued to the petitioner. I may state that the third respondent is none other than the mother of the second respondent. According to him, on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, this order is liable to be set aside. Had only a notice been given to the petitioner, he would have drawn the attention of the authorities to the fact that the partnership no longer exists in vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licence should not be amended and an enquiry was directed to take place on 4.2.1986. However, the letter containing the notice could not be served on the petitioner because the initial differed and the writ petitioner refused to receive. 4. Mr. S. Govindswaminathan appearing for the second and third respondents would submit that under law there is absolutely no necessity to issue a notice at all. Even though the licence was issued in the individual name of the writ petitioner, in view of Section 14 of the Partnership Act, that would belong to the partnership. Therefore, it became the property of the firm. Once the authorities were convinced that it was the property of the firm and in so far as the petitioner does not deny the existence of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... day to contend that licence is not property within the meaning of Article 300A of the Constitution. Even assuming it is a privilege, it is a very valuable privilege. Section 52 of the Easements Act clearly tells us that a licence is purely personal to the grantee. Under these circumstances, if the personal property of the privilege of a person is sought to be deprived it is nothing more than elementary to say that it could be done so, if at all permissible, only after notice to the concerned parties. Failure to do so will undoubtedly mean violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, I have not the slightest hesitation in upholding the argument of the learned Advocate General. It really passed my comprehension to appreciate th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Constitution of India, goes only by the records and cannot substitute what is not available on the records by ingeneous arguments or innovative submissions. Therefore, I reject the contention on behalf of the department that the petitioner actually refused and the postman had made the endorsement 'initials differ'. These are purely conjectures not warranted under any circumstances. In so far as there is deprivation of the property, it cannot be gainsaid that there must be notice to the petitioner. It is no consolation to say that neither the Act nor the rules provides for notice. It is not a mere matter of form but substance in relation to the deprivation of property or privilege. Therefore, I equally reject the attempt of Mr. S. Govindwam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled from the stand and sailed with Mr. Swaminathan that should this court be not inclined to accept the contention, the matter might be remitted to the licensing authority for issue of a proper notice in the conduct of the enquiry. I should not penalise the parties for the extreme stand taken by the Department. Therefore, the matter will stand remitted to the licensing authority for fresh hearing after due notice to the parties, both to the writ petitioner (K. Arumugaswamy) and to the second and third respondents (S.T. Grahadurai and T. Lakshmithayammal) I make it clear that the impugned order is hereby quashed. I further make it clear that it is open to the writ petitioner to put forth all objections available to him as on today by way of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
