Judgment :- These Writ petitions coming on for hearing upon perusing the petitions and the affidavits filed in support thereof the order of the High Court, dated 1-1-1965 and 30-12-1964 respectively and made herein, and the Counter affidavit filed herein and the records relating to the grant of exemption to the petitioner from payment of Excise Duty in respect of Cotton Fabrics as per Government of India Ministry of Finance (Revenue Department) Notification No. 44 of 1962, dated 24-4-1962 and other papers relating thereto on the file of the respondent herein and comprised in the return of the respondent herein to the Writs made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. T. R. Mani, Advocate for the petitioner, in W.P. No. 1988/64 and of Mr. A. Ramanatham, Advocate for the Petitioner in W.P. No. 2062/64 and of Mr. G. Ramanujam, Central Standing Counsel on behalf of the Respondent in both the petitions, the Court made the following order. 2.These two petitions are filed by two partnership firms praying for the issue of a Writ of mandamus directing the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, to grant each of them exemption from payment of excise duty in respect of the first 20, 000 sq. metres cotton fabrics cleared in a month for home consumption, as per Notification No. 44 of 1962, dated 24th April, 1962. 3.The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1988 of 1964 are M/s. Sivan Printing and Dyeing Factory, Erode. The partnership was started with four partners on 22-8-1956 and was registered in 1956. On 22-8-1963 one partner left and the three others constituted the partnership firm. They obtained a licence L. 4 No. 24/64 from the Collector of Central Excise for processing handloom fabrics by power. 4.The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2062 of 1964. M/s. Sivan Mahadevan Printing Mills, Erode, started with 7 partners on 5-6-1960. The partnership was registered on 14-9-1960. One partner left on 7-11-1960 and the partnership was continued with six persons. On 13-4-1963 one of the six partners retired and three more were taken in. The partnership thus consisted of eight persons. They obtained a licence L.4 No. 4/64. M/s. Sivan Mahadevan Printing Mills, Erode, started with 7 partners on 5-6-1960. The partnership was registered on 14-9-1960. One partner left on 7-11-1960 and the partnership was continued with six persons. On 13-4-1963 one of the six partners retired and three more were taken in. The partnership thus consisted of eight persons. They obtained a licence L.4 No. 4/64. It is admitted that the three partners in the first firm are partners in the second firm also.5.A notification was issued by the Government of India on 24th April, 1962, in exercise of the powers conferred on the Central Excise by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules 1944. By this notification the Central Government exempted the first 20, 000 sq. metres of cotton fabrics cleared in a month for home consumption from any processing factory as defined in rule 96 D of the said rules from so much of the duty as it in excess of the duty leviable under the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 43/62, dated 24th April, 1962 on such fabrics at the time of their entry into that factory. It is not disputed that both the partnership firms are qualified for the exemption granted under the notification. But by the proviso to the notification where a person has proprietory interest in more than one such processing factory and the quantities of cotton fabrics cleared in any month from all such factories exceeds 20, 000 sq. metres the exemption granted under the notification is to be shared between all such factories in proportion to the cotton fabrics cleared during that month from each of them. This proviso restricts the exemption granted by the notification exempting the first 20, 000 sq. metres of cotton fabrics in the case of persons having proprietory interest in more than one such processing factory. According to the petitioners though 3 of the persons that constituted the first firm were also partners in the second firm, the proviso would not apply. According to Mr. Mani, learned counsel for the petitioners, a partnership was not intended to be covered by this proviso. On a reading of the proviso, I am unable to accept this contention. According to the petitioners though 3 of the persons that constituted the first firm were also partners in the second firm, the proviso would not apply. According to Mr. Mani, learned counsel for the petitioners, a partnership was not intended to be covered by this proviso. On a reading of the proviso, I am unable to accept this contention. Every partner has admittedly a proprietory interest in a partnership and if one of the partners of a firm is also a partner in another firm, he will have proprietory interest in both the partnerships. This position is not disputed. According to the proviso Where a person (which certainly includes a partner in a partnership firm) has proprietory interest in more than one factory the exemption of 20, 000 sq. metres granted is to be shared between the factories. It was further contended on behalf of the petitioners that the intendment of the notification was that it was to cover only cases where the same person as opposed to a partner owned interest in two factories. I am unable to discern any such intendment from the language of the proviso. The contentions of the learned counsel fail and these two petitions are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.