ORAL JUDGMENT B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. :- The petitioners before this Court are the legal heirs of original partnership firm by name M/s Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works. The petition as filed contends that in view of provisions of Maharashtra Act No. XXXVI of 1984, respondent No.1 is entitled to take over only "the industrial undertaking" of said firm Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works, and the other property which is not comprised therein cannot be so acquired. It is stated that Plot No. 388 at Ghat Road, Nagpur and two godowns on it do not form the part of said Industrial undertaking and hence respondents cannot acquire those godowns in view of the said Act. 2. All the counsels have at the outset stated that validity of the Ordinance by which the provision was made for acquisition and transfer of said undertaking and thereafter validity of above-referred Maharashtra Act has been challenged by petitioners in independent writ petition which was earlier filed at Bombay having registration as Writ Petition No. 2103 of 1984. It is an admitted position that said writ petition is now transferred to this Bench and has been registered as Writ Petition No. 1457 of 1999. The learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the grievance and subject-matter of Writ Petition No. 1457 of 1999 is entirely different and is not eclipsed in any way by the decision of Writ Petition No. 1490 of 1992. He states that by deciding Writ Petition No. 1490 of 1992 either way, the challenge to constitutional or otherwise of above referred Maharashtra Act in Writ Petition 1457 of 1999 is not affected in any manner. The learned AGP has, however, tried to contend that the present writ petition cannot be considered until and unless Writ Petition No. 1457 of 1999 is first decided. We find no merit in stand of Assistant Government Pleader. 3. The petitioners state that firm has been dissolved sometime in January, 1974 and a suit for dissolution and for rendition of accounts is pending vide Civil Suit No.9 of 1974. The petitioners (original) were appointed as receiver of said partnership by order dated 21-7-1978 in that suit. We find no merit in stand of Assistant Government Pleader. 3. The petitioners state that firm has been dissolved sometime in January, 1974 and a suit for dissolution and for rendition of accounts is pending vide Civil Suit No.9 of 1974. The petitioners (original) were appointed as receiver of said partnership by order dated 21-7-1978 in that suit. The government desired to take over the press as management of press was not in a position to run the industry and hence bill was introduced for amending Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, and extending the operation of that Act to printing industries including the Litho Printing. As a result of this amendment, the first Schedule of the Act was amended and entry No. 38(5) was added which read "Printing including Litho Printing Industry". This was brought into effect with retrospective effect from 30-12-1978. On 23-8-1980, Union of India i.e. respondent No.2 issued an order under section 18AA(1)(B) of above referred Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, and authorised Development Corporation of Vidarbha Limited to take over the management of the whole industrial undertaking of M/s Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works, Nagpur. The said order was challenged by the petitioners by filing Writ Petition No. 2741 of 1980 and on 28-4-1982, this Court vide its judgment quashed and set aside that order of Union of India. The Development Corporation of Vidarbha Limited challenged this judgment of the High Court before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition No. 5160 of 1983 and while granting Special Leave to appeal, the Hon'ble Apex Court restricted it only to the question whether the Development Corporation of Vidarbha Limited was entitled to take possession of plot of land admeasuring 3.5 Acres i.e. Plot No. 388 on which two godowns are situated. The receiver was permitted to continue in possession of godown. Later on, the Special Leave Petition has been disposed of as infructuous on 4-2-1992. 4. During hearing of said Special Leave Petition, the period for which the management was taken over had expired and Ordinance was issued on 11-8-1984 acquiring the undertaking of petitioner firm and vesting it in the State Government. Being aggrieved by the said Ordinance, the petitioners have filed above-mentioned Writ Petition No. 2103 of 1984 which has been re-registered as Writ Petition No. 1457 of 1999. On 21-12-1984, the Ordinance has become Act. Being aggrieved by the said Ordinance, the petitioners have filed above-mentioned Writ Petition No. 2103 of 1984 which has been re-registered as Writ Petition No. 1457 of 1999. On 21-12-1984, the Ordinance has become Act. In view of this Act, the undertaking M/s Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works has been taken over by the State Government. The petitioners state that the Act permits the State Government only to take over industrial undertaking of MIs Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works and not other properties. The petitioners state that these two godowns were never used for any purposes of industrial undertaking of MIs Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works. The petitioners state that the said godown was initially leased out to Food Corporation of India for several years which vacated it on 5-6-1984 and thereafter the godowns have been leased out to respondent No.2-Union of India under the Agreement of Lease dated 5-6-1984. The petitioners, therefore, state that these godowns are not covered by the above mentioned Act. The petitioners state that due to refusal on the part of respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to pay rent to the petitioners, the petitioners have filed Writ Petition No. 606 of 1985 and on 30-4-1991, this writ petition was finally disposed of by directing respondents to deposit the arrears and future rent in relation to these godowns with State Government or such agency as State Government may direct. It is in this background that the present writ petition has been filed for seeking declaration that properties in possession of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 i.e. Postal Department of Union of India are private properties of the partnership firm and do not constitute industrial undertaking and hence petitioners are entitled to claim and receive rent of those premises. 5. Heard Shri Naik, Advocate holding for Shri S. V. Manohar, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners, Smt. Wandile, learned AGP and Shri Samel, learned counsel for the respondent-intervenor-development Corporation of Vidarbha Limited, who has been permitted to intervene in the matter on 17-81993. 6. After narrating the facts as mentioned above, Shri Naik, learned counsel has contended that the Act permits the State Government to only take over/acquire industrial undertaking of M/s Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works. 6. After narrating the facts as mentioned above, Shri Naik, learned counsel has contended that the Act permits the State Government to only take over/acquire industrial undertaking of M/s Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works. He states that therefore the entire assets of M/s Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works are not allowed to be taken over and are not contemplated by Maharashtra Act No. XXXVI of 1984. It is his contention that the purpose of said enactment was to see that the activity of printing which was going on should continue unhampered and therefore only printing press with necessary infrastructure has been allowed to be taken over and is contemplated under the Scheme of said Act. He argues that these two godowns which were never used for the purposes of business of M/s Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works are erroneously included within said phrase and therefore taken over. He has taken us through the said Act and pointed out the aims, objections, definition clause and section 3 to substantiate his contention. He has also invited our attention to the judgment of this Court dated 15-12-1980 delivered in Civil Revision Application Nos. 666 of 1980 and 679 of 1980 to state that in said judgment, this Court has found that these godowns are not situated in the precinct of the factory of the undertaking viz., industrial undertaking and therefore prima facie the godowns cannot be considered to be assets of industrial undertaking of which possession can be taken over by the Development Corporation. He contends that this judgment of High Court in above-referred Civil Revision Applications was not challenged by Development Corporation of Vidarbha Limited and has attained finality. It is, therefore, his contention that the prayer as made in writ petition needs to be granted. He has further pointed out- that on 2-9-2005, respondent No.4 has filed an affidavit pointing out that it has vacated the premises on 30-11-1990 and the possession has been handed over to Development Corporation of Vidarbha Limited. He states that said affidavit also shows that the Postal authorities have deposited the amount of Rs. 8,38,800/- with Development Corporation of Vidarbha Limited and according to him if the petition is to be allowed, it will have to be declared that the petitioners are entitled to receive/recover that amount from Development Corporation of Vidarbha Limited. 7. He states that said affidavit also shows that the Postal authorities have deposited the amount of Rs. 8,38,800/- with Development Corporation of Vidarbha Limited and according to him if the petition is to be allowed, it will have to be declared that the petitioners are entitled to receive/recover that amount from Development Corporation of Vidarbha Limited. 7. Smt. Wandile, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State of Maharashtra has contended that Plot No. 388 on which these two godowns are constructed has been leased out to firm on 28-7-1943 by the Collector, Nagpur, only for the purposes of Lithographic industry or purpose ancillary thereto and same could not be and cannot be used for any other purposes. The learned AGP therefore contends that the said Plot No. 388 is the property of Industrial Undertaking of M/s Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works and distinction sought to be drawn by the petitioners in this respect is artificial and not supported by the Scheme of the Act. She also invites attention to Clauses 3 and 4 of Lease Deed in this respect to point out that the firm M/s Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works had agreed that plot would only be used for the purposes of Lithographic industries or purposes ancillary thereto and not for any other purposes. The condition No. 4 prohibited said firm from selling, sub-letting or otherwise transferring the lease or any other interest, without the previous consent in writing from the collector. She contends that provisions of Maharashtra Act are very clear and entire assets of firm M/s Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works are covered and contemplated therein and hence declaration as sought for cannot be given. 8. Shri Samel, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor - Development Corporation of Vidarbha Limited has adopted the arguments of learned AGP and has also invited attention to section 4 of the above referred Maharashtra Act to point out that the undertaking shall be deemed to include all assets, rights, leaseholds powers etc, and according to him, therefore, the lease hold plot i.e. Plot No. 388 also is the property of firm and the distinction sought to be drawn between private properties of firm and industrial undertaking of firm, therefore, does not exist. He contends that the petition deserves to be dismissed. He contends that the petition deserves to be dismissed. He further adds that now the State Government has made further changes in the matter and the property is under the management of Manager of Government Printing Press at Nagpur, who works under the supervision of State Government and is looking after the entire management. He states that the industry is being run smoothly by the said officer on behalf of the State Government. 9. The perusal of prayer clause (A) of the petition shows that the petitioners have sought declaration that properties leased out by them to respondents No.2 to 4 are private properties of partnership firm of the petitioners and are not taken over by the State Government and hence petitioners are entitled to rent thereof. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioners are contemplating two types of properties with the partnership firm. The properties of first type are described by them as private properties. When questioned in this respect, the learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that private properties of partnership will mean the properties which are not covered by the "industrial undertaking" as per Maharashtra Act No. XXXVI of 1984 i.e. Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1984. 10. The perusal of Maharashtra Act XXXVI of 1984 reveals that it is an act to provide for the acquisition and transfer of the undertaking of M/s Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works, Nagpur, with a view to securing the proper management of such undertaking so as to subserve the interests of the general public and the employees of the undertaking by ensuring the continued manufacture, production and distribution of printed lithographic material which are essential to the needs of the economy of the State and country. The object of the Act further states that a printing press styled as Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works, Nagpur, was run by the members of the family as partners of a registered partnership firm and disputes between the members of family in relation to dissolution of the partnership firm arose and a Civil Suit No. 9 of 1974 was filed. It also records that said undertaking was closed down from 17-5-1979 throwing about 460 employees out of employment and hence as per orders of Government of India dated 23-8-1980, the management of the undertaking was taken over by the Central Government. It also records that said undertaking was closed down from 17-5-1979 throwing about 460 employees out of employment and hence as per orders of Government of India dated 23-8-1980, the management of the undertaking was taken over by the Central Government. It also records the subsequent event of setting aside of said order of Central Government by judgment dated 28-4-1982 delivered by this Court and thereafter it records that it was expedient to acquire said undertaking in the interest of general public and therefore the Act has been enacted. The Act is deemed to have come into force on 11-8-1984 and it has been called as Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1984. The phrase "undertaking" has been defined in section 2(i) to mean the industrial undertaking known as "Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works, Nagpur", belonging to the proprietors. The phrase "proprietors" has been defined in section 2(1) to mean the partnership firm namely, the Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works, Nagpur, registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, with its head office and section 3(1) provides for transfer and vesting of the undertaking and the right, title and interest of the properties in the State Government. The learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to contend that therefore the undertaking contemplated by section 3 is only a small part of the right, title and interest held by the firm Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works. The perusal of the aims and objects reveal that the Legislature has used the word "printing press" only at one place to point out that it was being run by members of family as partners of a registered partnership firm otherwise everywhere the word undertaking has been used and therefore it is apparent that printing press denotes a smaller establishment or part of an undertaking. The undertaking, therefore, is a word having wider meaning and it connotes not only printing press but also other properties of the firm Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works. It is to be noted that as per provisions of Indian Partnership Act, 1932, the individual proprietors of partnership firm are also answerable for claims against the partnership firm. In this background when prayer (A) is perused, it used the words private properties of partnership firm. The registered firm is not separate legal entity and it is adventure of individuals to earn and share profits. In this background when prayer (A) is perused, it used the words private properties of partnership firm. The registered firm is not separate legal entity and it is adventure of individuals to earn and share profits. It cannot therefore have private properties and other properties as sought to be propounded and the type of distinction artificially created by petitioners is not supported by any law. The fact which therefore emerges is that the godowns in question are also the properties of partnership firm. When section 4 of Maharashtra Act No. XXXVI of 1984 is looked into, it covers all the properties and there is deeming fiction in it. Its head is "General effect of vesting" and sub-section (1) of section 4 reads as under: "4. (1) The undertaking shall be deemed to include all assets, rights, lease-holds, powers, authorities and privileges, and all property, movable and immovable, including lands, buildings, workshops, stores, instruments, machinery and equipment, cash balances, cash on hand, reserve funds, investments, book debts and all other rights and interests in, or arising out of, such property as were immediately before the appointed day in the ownership, possession, power or control of the proprietors whether within or outside India, and all books of account, registers and all other documents of whatever nature relating thereto." It is, therefore, clear that all properties of the firm are included within the sweep of phrase "undertaking" and this is also apparent from section 2(f) which defines "proprietors". Section 3(1) clearly states that the right, title and interest of the proprietors in relation to their undertaking shall, by virtue of this Act, stands transferred and vests absolutely in State Government. All assets of firm even under control of proprietors is therefore comprehended in the undertaking by section 4(1) above. Therefore, the question whether property is being used or has not been used actually for the purpose of printing press or for the purposes of firm namely Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works is not relevant at all for these purposes. Section 10 casts an obligation on persons in-charge of management of undertaking to deliver all assets of the firm and section 11 also casts an obligation upon him to account for all such assets. The distinction sought to be made by the petitioners in this respect is not in existence and not contemplated by the Scheme of Maharashtra Act No. XXXVI of 1984. 11. The distinction sought to be made by the petitioners in this respect is not in existence and not contemplated by the Scheme of Maharashtra Act No. XXXVI of 1984. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that these godowns were never used for any purposes in connection with the business of the firm. He has also pointed out observations made in paragraph 12 of the judgment of this Court in Civil Revision Applications No. 666 of 1980 and 679 of 1980. It is to be noted that in paragraph 12, it is recorded that only one godown which is situated on rear side is being used for the undertaking in question and the godown on the front side was leased out for a number of years continuously. This observation therefore also shows that one of the godowns has been used by the petitioners for the purposes of business of undertaking. As already stated that the petitioners have accepted this finding. It is to be noted that the State Government was not party to those revisions and the provisions of above referred Maharashtra Act are also not considered therein because the said Act of Maharashtra has come much later. These observations, therefore, cannot be construed to mean that the godowns are not the property of the undertaking in question. In Revisions, the issue was limited and the challenge was to an interim order passed in Civil Suit. This Court has ultimately allowed one Revision partly and Development Corporation was directed to hand-over the possession of front side godown on the Ghat Road and open plot adjoining thereto to the receivers along with other three properties. The Development Corporation of Vidarbha Limited was further permitted to have access to the backside godown through the open plot. Thus, it is apparent that it is only an interim arrangement and hence the observations in paragraph 12 have not finally concluded the issue. However, as already stated above, those observations can very well be used against the present petitioners. 12. The perusal of return filed by respondent No. 1 reveals that these godowns are on Plot No. 388 and said plot has been given on lease by Collector, Nagpur, vide lease deed dated 28-7-1943. However, as already stated above, those observations can very well be used against the present petitioners. 12. The perusal of return filed by respondent No. 1 reveals that these godowns are on Plot No. 388 and said plot has been given on lease by Collector, Nagpur, vide lease deed dated 28-7-1943. Clause 3 imposed express condition upon the petitioners to use that plot only for the purposes of Lithographic industry and purposes ancillary thereto and it also put obligation upon firm not to use the plot for any other purposes. Clause (4) also required them not to sell, sublet or otherwise transfer the lease or any other interest without the previous consent in writing of the Collector. It is, therefore, clear that the plot has been leased out to partnership firm i.e. Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works for the purposes of Lithographic industry or purposes ancillary thereto. Thus, the contention of petitioners that they have not used the plot actually for the lithography work and plot in question is only meant for the private purposes cannot be accepted. In these circumstances, we find that the godowns in question which have been constructed on said Plot No. 388 are forming integral part of the firm Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works and therefore, the State Government was competent to acquire and take possession. We, therefore, find that there is no merit in the petition. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.