ORDER : (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) The instant appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 03.12.2021 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2599 of 2021, whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed by declining to interfere with the order dated 26.06.2021 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by respondent no.2 whereby the marriage hall/banquet hall running in the name of ‘Celebration’ has been sealed on the ground that the same is being used without obtaining licence under Jharkhand Urban Area Dharmashala, Marriage hall/Banquet Hall, Lodge and Hostel Construction and Licence Rules, 2013 as well as in violation of the Jharkhand Municipal Corporation Act, 2011. 2. The brief fact of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated for proper adjudication of the case, reads as under: The petitioner along with six others including the intervener- Anand Kumar entered into a partnership agreement dated 24.02.2012 and constituted a partnership firm in the name and style of ‘M/s Samridhi Lifestyle’ to build and operate a banquet hall under the brand name of ‘Celebration’. The petitioner and his two brothers, namely, Sardar Veer Singh Munda and Mohan Munda were the owners of the landed property located at Village-Hatma, being M.S Plot Nos. 707, 710, 713, 714, 715, 717 under Khata Nos. 99, 192 & 195 whereas the cost of the development and construction over the said land was to be borne by the intervener-Anand Kumar and three others, namely, Rakesh Prasad, Cactus Milli Sinku and Chandra Shekhar Patra. The partnership firm was reconstituted vide agreement dated 01.04.2014 as Cactus Milly and Chandra Shekhar Patra chose to retire and Smt. Kumkum Srivastava joined the business as a new partner. Further, one of the partners, namely, Rakesh Prasad died on 06.09.2020 due to Covid-19 and thereafter his wife (intervener-Sangita Prasad) claimed to be inducted as a partner in place of her demised husband being entitled in terms of Clause 16 of the said partnership agreement. However, other partners did not act in terms with the aforesaid clause of partnership agreement and no share or profit was transferred to the intervener- Sangita Prasad. One partner, namely, Kumkum Srivastava relinquished her share in favour of the intervener-Anand Kumar after receiving valuable consideration. However, other partners did not act in terms with the aforesaid clause of partnership agreement and no share or profit was transferred to the intervener- Sangita Prasad. One partner, namely, Kumkum Srivastava relinquished her share in favour of the intervener-Anand Kumar after receiving valuable consideration. It was provided in the partnership agreement that the petitioner and his two brothers being three partners of the said agreement would make the land admeasuring approximately two acres available to the firm for development of banquet hall/marriage hall at the site and the cost of construction development would be borne by other four partners. The said land would remain the sole property of the firm for the specified business. 3. The writ petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 26.06.2021 passed by respondent no.2 whereby the marriage hall/banquet hall running in the name of ‘Celebration’ has been sealed, approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P (C) No.2599 of 2021. 4. The facts demonstrate that while the writ petition was pending before the learned Single Judge an interlocutory application has been filed by one Anand Kumar being I.A. No.3577 of 2021 claiming the interest over the property in question and I.A. No.3592 of 2021 by Sangita Devi, who has also claimed the right over the property in question, challenging the locus of the petitioner in filing the writ petition. Both the interveners-applicants have taken the ground together that writ petitioner has approached this Court in an individual capacity with the pleading that the partnership has got dissolved and has tried to project his case on the basis of the fact that M/s Samridhi Lifestyle is only being run by the petitioner and his two brothers. They have contended before the learned writ Court that the partnership firm has not been dissolved and the right of the partners continues. The interveners, therefore, has taken the plea about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner cannot file writ petition in his individual capacity. Such ground has been taken that if the writ petition will be entertained which has been filed in the individual capacity of the writ petitioner the consequence of the same will be that the right of the other partners will be diluted which will be against the interest of the partnership firm. Such ground has been taken that if the writ petition will be entertained which has been filed in the individual capacity of the writ petitioner the consequence of the same will be that the right of the other partners will be diluted which will be against the interest of the partnership firm. However, the petitioner has taken the ground that the interveners-applicants, the brothers of the writ petitioner being the owners of the land in question, have tried to divert the issue on the ground of land coming under the provisions of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that as per the Clause 3 of the said partnership deed, duration of the partnership business is for minimum period of 20 years, however, the partners are at liberty to retire from co-partnership, subject to giving one month’s notice to the remaining partners. The partnership deed cannot be said to be a mere internal arrangement. It has further been contended that the terms of the partnership deed contains a reference that by virtue of the said deed, a new partnership, namely, M/s Samridhi Lifestyle was constituted/re-constituted. The Ranchi Municipal Corporation has put its appearance on being called upon and has taken the ground of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that there is alternative/efficacious/statutory remedy available to the petitioner as per the provision as contained under Rule 14 of the Jharkhand Urban Area Dharmshala, Marriage hall/Banquet Hall, Lodge and Hostel Construction and Licence Rules, 2013. It has been stated that a notice was issued to the writ petitioner being notice no.2694 dated 03.12.2017 by the office of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation directing him that the licence for running the marriage hall/banquet hall in the name of ‘Celebration’ would be cancelled, unless he produce the sanctioned building plan of the said banquet hall and make provision for decentralized compositing which was a prerequisite mandated under the Jharkhand Urban Area Dharmshala, Marriage hall/Banquet Hall, Lodge and Hostel Construction and Licence Rules, 2013. The petitioner preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.7274 of 2017 which was disposed of vide order dated 17.01.2018 directing the petitioner to submit an updated building plan of the marriage hall before the competent authority of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation with further direction to the Corporation to take appropriate decision with regard to sanction of the building plan. The petitioner preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.7274 of 2017 which was disposed of vide order dated 17.01.2018 directing the petitioner to submit an updated building plan of the marriage hall before the competent authority of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation with further direction to the Corporation to take appropriate decision with regard to sanction of the building plan. But the petitioner failed to present the application with updated building plan as directed by this Court vide order dated 17.01.2018 and as such a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide letter no.518 dated 08.03.2018 asking him as to why the banquet hall, namely, ‘Celebration’ be not declared as an illegal construction and be not proceeded with in accordance with law. It has further been contended by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation that the petitioner was again asked to submit the building plan vide letter no.917 dated 05.04.2018 as per the direction passed by this Court vide order dated 17.01.2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.7274 of 2017 but the same having not been produced, therefore, order has been passed on 20.07.2018 by the respondent no.1 whereby the banquet hall ‘Celebration’ was restrained from taking any booking for the same. The banquet hall was also directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for each booking done by it after 28.02.2018 i.e. the cut of date fixed after calculating six week’s time from the order dated 17.01.2018 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.7274 of 2017. The respondent no.1 has also imposed a fine of Rs.1,65,000/- vide order dated 20.07.2018 which was paid by the petitioner and thereafter he made an application on 01.01.2019 for sanction of the building plan of the said banquet hall which was sanctioned on 12.02.2019. It has been contended that the building plan application was made for construction of the new building over M.S Plot Nos.707 (Part), 710 (Part), 713, 714 and 717, Khata Nos. 99, 192 & 195, Village-Hatma, District Ranchi. The further stand of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation was that at the time of submitting the building plan application, the old structure of the banquet hall ‘Celebration’ was already existing over the said land. The petitioner sworn an affidavit that the existing structure of the said banquet hall would be demolished and after demolition of the existing structure, a new building as per the said building plan, would be constructed over the aforesaid plots. The petitioner sworn an affidavit that the existing structure of the said banquet hall would be demolished and after demolition of the existing structure, a new building as per the said building plan, would be constructed over the aforesaid plots. However, the old structure of the banquet hall which was functioning in the name of ‘Celebration’ was not demolished as per the affidavit sworn by the petitioner and the condition laid down in the sanctioned plan, rather, the petitioner continued to operate the banquet hall in the same old structure which was admittedly an unauthorized construction for which there was no sanctioned building plan and therefore, the existing structure has been sealed, since, is an unauthorized construction for which there was no sanctioned building plan. The ground has also been taken about the interest of the other partners as per the partnership deed. 5. The learned writ Court has appreciated the argument advanced on behalf of the parties including the interveners-applicants and considering the fact that the issue of locus has been challenged by the interveners-applicants, the partnership as per the partnership deed dated 24.02.2012 and the same was in existence till 2032, since, the same was to be continued for minimum period of 20 years. The learned Single Judge, therefore, considering the fact that the necessary party to the partnership firm, the interveners-applicants have not been impleaded as party to the proceeding and since they have objected the petitioner’s exclusive claim over the same and as such refrains itself in exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred to this Court, by dismissing the writ petition, which is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal. 6. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner has contended that the issue fell for consideration before the learned Single Judge was regarding the legality and propriety of the decision of the sanctioning authority, i.e., Ranchi Municipal Corporation and as such the learned Single Judge ought to have considered that part of the matter but having not done so, rather, travelled towards the issue of title over the property where the banquet hall, Celebration, has been constructed and therefore, the learned Single Judge has committed gross error in passing the impugned judgment and as such the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law and hence the same may be quashed and set aside. The issue of power to seal the building in question running as banquet hall in the name of ‘Celebration’ has also been raised, since, there is no provision to that effect under the statute. 7. Per contra, Mrs. Ritu Kumar and Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4 respectively have submitted by defending the order passed by the learned Single Judge by taking the ground that the writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner by suppressing the material fact about the interest of the interveners-applicants over the property in question which they have got by virtue of partnership deed of which they are the partners of the partnership firms M/s Samridhi Lifestyle and as such under the aforesaid partnership deed the banquet hall in the name of ‘Celebration’ has been constructed and as such the same will be said to be in the name of M/s Samridhi Lifestyle as per the aforesaid partnership deed. It has been contended by referring to the trade licence granted by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation in order to demonstrate that the said trade licence has been granted in the name of M/s Samridhi Lifestyle in order to allow to run the banquet hall. It has further been contended that it is not in dispute and has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the banquet hall running in the name of ‘Celebration’ is under the partnership deed by which the partnership firm in the name of M/s Samridhi Lifestyle has been constituted and since the M/s Samridhi Lifestyle, the partnership firm, was the applicant for the purpose of grant of trade licence and as such in the capacity of partners to the partnership firm the interveners-applicants have got their right, interest over the property in question and as such they are necessary party but in complete suppression of the aforesaid fact the writ petition has been filed and when the fact about their interest have been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge in course of hearing of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has considered it fatal for the purpose of maintaining the writ petition and accordingly the writ petition has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the interveners-applicants, therefore, have jointly submitted that the learned Single Judge since has taken into consideration the very issue of locus and non-joinder of the necessary parties if has dismissed the writ petition considering the issue based upon the disputed fact, which cannot be said to suffer from an error. 8. Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Ranchi Municipal Corporation has submitted by taking the ground that the licence to trade was granted by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation in favour of the owner, namely, M/s Samridhi Lifestyle. The Ranchi Municipal Corporation has issued a notice on 03.12.2017 directing the writ petitioner to furnish the sanction building plan of the building where the marriage hall/banquet hall in the name of ‘Celebration’ has been running. The writ petitioner being aggrieved with the said decision preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.7274 of 2017 which was disposed of vide order dated 17.01.2018 directing the petitioner to submit an updated building plan of the marriage hall before the competent authority of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation with a further direction to the Corporation to take appropriate decision with regard to sanction of the building plan. But the writ petitioner has failed to present the application with updated building plan as directed by this Court vide order dated 17.01.2018 and as such a notice was issued to the petitioner vide letter no.518 dated 08.03.2018 asking him as to why the banquet hall, namely, ‘Celebration’ be not declared as an illegal construction and be not proceeded with in accordance with law. Again vide letter no.917 dated 05.04.2018 the petitioner was asked to submit the building plan application and on failure of the petitioner in furnishing the same, the order impugned dated 20.07.2018 was passed whereby the banquet hall, Celebration was restrained from taking any booking for the same. The fines have also been imposed. Learned counsel for the Ranchi Municipal Corporation on the basis of the aforesaid background has submitted that the building in question since is lying without any sanction of plan and as such the same has been considered by the Ranchi municipal Corporation, the sanctioning authority to be an illegal construction. The fines have also been imposed. Learned counsel for the Ranchi Municipal Corporation on the basis of the aforesaid background has submitted that the building in question since is lying without any sanction of plan and as such the same has been considered by the Ranchi municipal Corporation, the sanctioning authority to be an illegal construction. It has further been contended that the writ petitioner has also misled the Corporation, since, on the basis of his application made on 01.01.2019 for sanction of the building plan of the said banquet hall which was sanctioned on 12.02.2019 subject to the condition that the old structure of the banquet hall ‘Celebration’ will be demolished but it has not been demolished, rather, in the same building the banquet hall is running. The further ground has been taken that one of the partners, namely, Anand Kumar made representation before the Ranchi Municipal Corporation stating the entire facts also requesting therein that his consent was not obtained while making the application for issuance of the trade licence, rather, the same was submitted behind his back and without his knowledge and as such the same is libale to be cancelled. The another partner, namely, Rakesh Prasad who has already died on 06.09.2020 but his name was fraudulently used as an applicant to obtain trade licence and as such the application for issuance of trade licence in the name of a dead person is itself a nullity and void ab-initio. Learned counsel for the Ranchi Municipal Corporation on the basis of the aforesaid ground has submitted that if the learned Single Judge considering the fact in entirety has come to the conclusion that the disputed fact is involved basis upon which he has refused to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred to this Court, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 10. This Court before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment requires to refer herein the fact which is not in dispute i.e. a building was constructed in the Plot Nos.707 (Part), 710 (Part), 713, 714 and 717, Khata Nos. 99, 192 & 195, Village-Hatma, District Ranchi. 10. This Court before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment requires to refer herein the fact which is not in dispute i.e. a building was constructed in the Plot Nos.707 (Part), 710 (Part), 713, 714 and 717, Khata Nos. 99, 192 & 195, Village-Hatma, District Ranchi. The said building was the subject matter of the partnership firm, namely, M/s Samridhi Lifestyle constituted in pursuance to the partnership deed amongst its three partners namely, Rakesh Prasad, Anand Kumar and Kumkum Srivastava. Rakesh Prasad died on 06.09.2020. The application was filed on behalf of the partnership firm, namely, M/s Samridhi Lifestyle. But as would appear from the material available on record that one of the partners namely, Rakesh Prasad died on 06.09.2020 but the allegation has been levelled that his name was also used as an applicant to obtain trade license which is a fraudulent act of the writ petitioner. The another partner, namely, Anand Kumar had also represented before the Ranchi Municipal Corporation before granting trade licence no consent was obtained, rather, the ground was taken that the application was filed behind his back and without his knowledge. However, the licence to trade was granted on 15.02.2021 having its validity up to 14.02.2026 in the name of M/s Samridhi Lifestyle by making reference of the owner’s name of Rohtas Munda, Rakesh Prasad, Kumkum Srivastava and Anand Kumar as would appear from page 72 of the paper book, for ready reference, the Municipal Trade Licence issued under section 455 (i) of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 is being reproduced herein: Municipal Trade License Approval Certificate RANCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Municipal Trade License (This certificate relates to Section 455 (i) Jharkhand Municipal Act 2011) Municipal Trade License Number: RAN21083118146504 Issue date of Municipal Trade License Number: 15-02-2021 Validity of Municipal Trade License Number:14-02-2026 Occupancy certificate no: Owner/Entity Name: SAMRIDHI LIFE STYLE Ward No.21 Owner Name of Entity: ROHTAS MUNDA, RAKESH PRASAD, KUMKUM SHRIVASTAVA ANAND KUMAR Holding no.0210001396000x2 Nature of Entity: OFFICE Street Address: H-244 STREET KARAM TOLI MORABADI, RANCHI JHARKHAND Ownership of business premises: MR.ROHTAS MUNDA MR. SARDAR VIR SINGH MUNDA, Business Code: (Other) Application No:200335150221123549 Date of Establishment: 01-12-2017 Date & Time of Application: 15-02-2021 New Ward No.19 Mobile No.9472772261 This is to declare that SAMRIDHI LIFE STYLE having application number 200335150221123549 has been successfully registered with us with satisfactory compliance of registration criteria and to certify that trade license number RAN21083118146504 has been allocated SAMRIDHI LIFE STYLE for conducting business which is (Other) as per business code mentioned in Jharkhand Municipal Act 2011 in the regime of this local body. The validity of this license is subject to meeting the terms and conditions as specified in U/s 455 of Jharkhand Municipal Act 2011 and other applicable sections in the act along with following terms and conditions:- 1. Business will run according to license issued. 2. Prior Permission from local body is necessary if business is changed. 3. Informaton to local body is necessary for extension of area. 4. Prior information to local body regarding winding of business is necessary. 5. Application for renewal of license is necessary one month before expiry of license. 6. In the case of delay penalty will be levied according to section 459 of Jharkhand Municipal Act 2011. 7. Illegal Parking in front of firm in non-permissible. 8. Sufficient number of containers for disposing-garbage and refuse shall be made available within the premises and the license will co-operate with the ULB for disposal of such waste. 9. SWM Rules, 2016 and Plastic Waste Management Rules 2016 shall be adhered to in words as well as spirit. 10. Licensee establishment shall comply the all section of COTPA- 2003. 11. Licensee shop shall comply sec 77 of J.J Act 2015 and food Safety Act (FSSAI) 2011. 12. Licensee shops selling Tobacco Product will not sale any other non Tobacco Products like Toffees, Candy, Chips. Biscuits and any type of Drinks etc. and Licensee who sale other food product cannot sale Tobacco products. Note: This is a computer generated License. This License does not require a physical signature. Authorized Signatory (Deputy Municipal Commissioner) 11. It is, thus, evident that the license to trade was granted in the name of the owner/entity namely, M/s Samridhi Lifestyle making reference of the owner name of entity M/s Samridhi Lifestyle. Note: This is a computer generated License. This License does not require a physical signature. Authorized Signatory (Deputy Municipal Commissioner) 11. It is, thus, evident that the license to trade was granted in the name of the owner/entity namely, M/s Samridhi Lifestyle making reference of the owner name of entity M/s Samridhi Lifestyle. The fact is not in dispute that the land in question where the building has been constructed which was being used as banquet/marriage hall running in the name of ‘Celebration’. The authority of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation had issued notice asking the writ petitioner to produce the updated sanction building plan failing which the trade license will be cancelled. The said action of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation has led the writ petitioner to prefer a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.7274 of 2017. This Court while disposing of the writ petition vide order dated 17.01.2018 directed the writ petitioner to produce the updated building plan. But the updated building plan of the construction where the banquet hall running in the name of ‘Celebration’ was not produced and therefore, the another chance was provided by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation but even then the updated building plan was not produced and therefore, the impugned decision was passed by sealing the premises for the purpose of taking further action for its demolition. It requires to refer herein that the subject matter of dispute in the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.7274 of 2017 was that the Ranchi Municipal Corporation had issued the notice to produce the updated building plan and in the meanwhile further business has been refrained to be done in the said premises having been used for the banquet hall/marriage hall. 12. The writ petitioner being aggrieved with the impugned decision dated 26.06.2021 has filed a writ petition being W.P (C) No.2599 of 2021 praying therein for following reliefs: “(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order (s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 26.06.2021 passed by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi (Respondent No.2) (Annexure-4) by which a direction has been given to seal the Marriage Hall of “Celebration” since the petitioner is using the Marriage Hall of “Celebration” for celebration of marriage without obtaining license under Jharkhand Shahri Kshetra Dharamshala/Vivah Bhawan/Banquet Hall/Lodge and Hostel Construction and License Rule 2013 as well as in violation of Jharkhand Municipal Corporation Act, 2011. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to open the Seal of the Main Gate of “Celebration” since the Marriage Hall in the “Celebration” is inside the premises of “Celebration” and other activities of the “Celebration” is also carried out in the rooms as well as in the other parts of the “Celebration” for which no license is required under the License Rule 2013. (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to allow the petitioner for the present to operate the Marriage Hall till the application already submitted by the petitioner for grant of license under the License Rule 2013 is decided by the respondent authorities.” 13. It appears from the relief sought for by the writ petitioner in the writ petition that the prayer no.1(i) is for quashing the order dated 26.06.2021 by which a direction was given to seal the marriage hall of ‘Celebration’ since the petitioner was using the marriage hall of ‘Celebration’ for celebration of marriage without obtaining license under Jharkhand Shahri Kshetra Dharamshala/Vivah Bhawan/Banquet Hall/Lodge and Hostel Construction and License Rule 2013 as well as in violation of Jharkhand Municipal Corporation Act, 2011. Prayer no.1(ii) is for issuance of mandamus upon the respondents to open the Seal of the main gate of “Celebration” since the marriage hall in the “Celebration” is inside the premises of “Celebration” and other activities of the “Celebration” is also carried out in the rooms as well as in the other parts of the “Celebration” for which no license is required under the License Rule 2013. And the third prayer as under 1(iii) was for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to allow the petitioner for the present to operate the Marriage Hall till the application already submitted by the petitioner for grant of license under the License Rule 2013 is decided by the respondent authorities. Therefore, the relief as would appear from the prayer of the writ petition that the building in question for which the trade license was granted that was running in the building constructed in the premises of ‘Celebration’ was the subject matter of the writ petition for seeking direction to operate the marriage hall. Therefore, the relief as would appear from the prayer of the writ petition that the building in question for which the trade license was granted that was running in the building constructed in the premises of ‘Celebration’ was the subject matter of the writ petition for seeking direction to operate the marriage hall. The aforesaid prayer particularly the prayer no.1(iii) explicitly clarifies that the writ petitioner claiming himself to be absolute title holder of the building in question has approached this Court but his status as an absolute owner of the property does not find support from the partnership deed under which a partnership firm has been created by virtue of the deed dated 24.02.2012 to which the writ petitioner was one of the partners namely, Rohtas Munda. 14. The interveners-applicants, respondent nos.3 and 4 herein after coming to know about the filing of the writ petition had filed interlocutory applications being I.A. No.3592 of 2021 and I.A. No.3577 of 2021 respectively bringing notice of this Court that they are necessary parties in pursuance to the partnership deed to which they are other partners under which the business in the name of ‘Celebration’ is running. 15. The learned Single Judge has considered the aforesaid fact and after scrutinizing the partnership deed as also the municipal trade license dated 15.02.2021 as quoted and referred hereinabove has considered the interest of interveners-applicants (respondent nos.3 and 4 herein) over the property in question but very surprisingly they have not been impleaded as party, the same has been taken by the learned Single Judge to be fatal for maintaining the writ petition. Learned Single Judge has also considered the fact about the partnership deed under which the partnership firm has been created is not in dispute as also it has not been disputed by the writ petitioner that the trade license was granted in favour of the partnership firm but even then the other partners of the partnership firm have not been impleaded as party. Further the learned Single Judge has also considered the conduct of the writ petitioner to the effect that one of the partners namely, Anand Kumar has made an application before the Ranchi Municipal Corporation that behind his back the application to get the trade licence before the Ranchi Municipal Corporation was filed and as such the same was prayed to be cancelled. Further the another partner namely, Rakesh Prasad has died on 06.09.2020 but even after his death due application by putting his signature in the application for getting the trade license was filed. The learned Single Judge after considering the conduct of the writ petitioner as also considering the interest of the other partners of the firm has considered the issue of locus of the writ petitioner in not impleading the other partners of the firm and in individual capacity the writ petition was filed although it ought to have been filed on behalf of the firm after getting an authority from the other partners of the firm. The learned Single Judge, as such, has come to a finding that since the interveners-applicants (respondent nos.3 and 4 herein) are having the interest over the property in question but they have not been impleaded as party, therefore, has considered the writ petitioner having no locus to file the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has further appreciated the fact by taking into consideration the fact brought by way of an affidavit on behalf of the other partners of the firm regarding the conduct of the writ petitioner in making an application behind the back of the partners as also the ground of the fraud committed by getting signature of one of the partners, namely, Rakesh Prasad who has died on 06.09.2020 has considered it a case of disputed fact. 16. The learned Single Judge has further find the aforesaid fact in corroboration from the fact which was brought by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation by way of an affidavit regarding the representation made on behalf of one of the partners, namely, Anand Kumar about commission of forgery in filing the application for getting the trade license by getting the signature of the partner, namely, Rakesh Prasad who was already died on 06.09.2020. Further fact about making an application behind the back as was disclosed by another partner by making representation before the Ranchi Municipal Corporation has come to finding that in such a disputed question of fact the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred to this Court cannot be exercised. 17. Further fact about making an application behind the back as was disclosed by another partner by making representation before the Ranchi Municipal Corporation has come to finding that in such a disputed question of fact the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred to this Court cannot be exercised. 17. The question which has been raised that the issue which was raised before the writ Court was to scrutinize the legality and propriety of the impugned decision dated 26.06.2021 which pertains to cancellation of the trade licence and as such the writ Court ought to have considered that aspect of the matter only but the learned Single Judge has travelled beyond the scope of the writ petition. But this argument is not acceptable to this Court reason being that when the power conferred to this Court under Article 226 has been exercised it is incumbent upon the writ Court to look into the fact in entirety and if any fact has been brought which is touching the issue based upon the disputed question of fact, the same according to our considered view is of paramount consideration to be considered by the writ Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 18. The position of law is well settled that if the fact is in serious dispute the same cannot be decided under summary proceeding like the writ jurisdiction, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rourkela Shramik Sangh v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Anr. reported in (2003) 4 SCC 317 at paragraph 23 which reads as under: “23. Furthermore, even otherwise, a disputed question of fact normally would not be entertained in a writ proceeding. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers. In any event, the orders of the Chief Labour Commissioner dated 4-1-1995 also show that other documents which were placed on record by the workmen had also been scrutinized and they had not been found reliable.” Further in the case of State of J & K vs. K.C Vanaspati., reported in (2006) 9 SCC 183 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held at paragraph 4, which reads as under: “4. We are of the view that the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition particularly since the question was ultimately a disputed question of fact. Whether the sales tax was being collected by the respondent from its consumers in the guise of distribution charges was a question of fact which could not have been satisfactorily, and indeed was not, decided under Article 226 by the High Court.” 19. This Court after considering the aforesaid position of law and after considering the fact as has been discussed hereinabove in entirety, is of the view that the learned Single Judge if on the basis of the fact that the private dispute is involved, if refrains from exercising extraordinary jurisdiction conferred to this Court, which according to our considered view, cannot be said to suffer from an error. 20. Accordingly, in entirety of the facts and circumstances, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed, accordingly dismissed. 21. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.