Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 68 (KER)

J & S Granites Company v. State Of Kerala

2023-01-19

N.NAGARESH

body2023
JUDGMENT : When a Partnership Firm has submitted application for Mining Lease, whether the competent authority to process the application can refuse to do so on the ground that the Explosives Licence produced in support of the Quarrying Lease has been issued in the name of one of the Partners of the Firm and not in the name of the Firm. This is the common question arising in these three writ petitions filed by three different Partnership Firms. 2. W.P.(C) No.32433 of 2022 has been filed by a Partnership Firm represented by its Managing Partner Sri.K.Sadanandan. The petitioner-Firm was issued with a Letter of Intent in the name of the Firm for starting a Quarry. The petitioner has obtained all requisite statutory Licences, Permits and Consent so as to make the petitioner eligible for Quarrying Lease. Ext.P3 Explosives Licence under the Explosives Rules has been issued in the name of “Shri. K.Sadanandan”. By Ext.P4 letter, the Director, Mining and Geology has informed the Geologist that as and when an Explosives Licence issued in the name of the Partnership Firm is produced, the application for Mining Lease would be processed. 3. More or less similar are the facts in W.P.(C) Nos.34797 and 37986 of 2022. In W.P.(C) No.34797 of 2022, the petitioner-Firm is represented by its Managing Partner Sri. K.J. Thomaskutty and Ext.P3 Explosives Licence is issued to Sri. K.J.Thomas. In W.P.(C) No.37986 of 2022, Sri. Nisarudeen is the Managing Partner of the Firm and Ext.P3 Explosives Licence has been issued in the name of Sri. S. Nizarudhin. It may be noted here that the respondents have no case that the persons, who have been issued with Explosives Licence, are not Managing Partners of the respective Partnership Firms. 4. However, the applications for Mining Lease submitted by the petitioner-Firms are not being processed for the reason that Explosive Licences are not issued in the name of the Partnerships but in the name of individuals who are Managing Partners of the respective Firms. In W.P.(C) No.37986 of 2022, certain other deficiencies are also indicated as reason for not issuing Quarrying Lease. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Letter of Intent has been issued in the name of Partnership Firm and the Explosives Licence is issued in the name of the Managing Partner of the Firm. In W.P.(C) No.37986 of 2022, certain other deficiencies are also indicated as reason for not issuing Quarrying Lease. 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Letter of Intent has been issued in the name of Partnership Firm and the Explosives Licence is issued in the name of the Managing Partner of the Firm. The Explosives Licence would indicate that it has been issued on the basis of the Letter of Intent issued in favour of the Partnership. Hence, the respondents cannot contend that the Explosives Licence has been issued to the Managing Partner in his individual capacity. 6. The counsel for the petitioners further urged that a Partnership Firm is not a separate juristic entity. Partnership Firm is only a collection of individuals. Therefore, an Explosives Licence issued in the personal name of the Managing Partner should be treated as one issued to the Partnership. 7. The Government Pleader submitted that the petitioners have obtained all the licences in the name of Partnership Firm whereas the Explosives Licence is issued in the name of individuals. As the petitioners have applied for Quarrying Lease in the name of Partnership Firm, the Explosives Licence should also be in the name of the Firm. Nothing prevented the petitioners from applying for Quarrying Lease in the name of any of its Partners, in which case the Explosives Licence issued in such name could have been accepted. The writ petitions are therefore without any merit, urged the Government Pleader. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents. 9. In W.P.(C) No.32433 of 2022, Ext.P1 Letter of Intent is seen issued to Sri.K.Sadanandan, Managing Partner, J&S Granites Company. Obviously, the Letter of Intent is issued to Sri. K.Sadanandan representing the Firm. Ext.P3 Explosives Licence is seen issued to Shri. K. Sadanandan, Mupramon, Vallikode, Kottayam. Ext.P3 Acknowledgement of Licence application issued by the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives specifically refers to Ext.P1 Letter of Intent issued to the Partnership Firm. It would show that the Explosives Licence has been issued to the Managing Partner representing the Partnership Firm. 10. Ext.P1(a) Letter of Intent in W.P.(C) No.34797 of 2022 has been issued to M/s. New Mary Matha Metal Crusher Unit represented by its Managing Partner Shri. K.J.Thomas. Ext.P3 Explosives Licence also refers to Ext.P1 Letter of Intent. It would show that the Explosives Licence has been issued to the Managing Partner representing the Partnership Firm. 10. Ext.P1(a) Letter of Intent in W.P.(C) No.34797 of 2022 has been issued to M/s. New Mary Matha Metal Crusher Unit represented by its Managing Partner Shri. K.J.Thomas. Ext.P3 Explosives Licence also refers to Ext.P1 Letter of Intent. Ext.P3 also gives the survey numbers of property as given in Ext.P1 Letter of Intent. Therefore, it is evident that the Explosives Licence has been granted to Shri. K.J.Thomas, who is the Managing Partner of the Firm to which the Letter of Intent is issued. 11. In W.P.(C) No.37986 of 2022, Ext.P1 Letter of Intent is seen issued to M/s. Brothers Quarry represented by Managing Partner Shri. Nisarudeen. In this case also, Ext.P3 Explosives Licence Acknowledgement issued by the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives to Shri. S.Nizarudhin refers to Ext.P1 Letter of Intent and also refers to the same survey numbers of property indicated in the Letter of Intent. Ext.P3 therefore only can be treated as issued to Shri. Nisarudeen as Managing Partner of M/s.Brothers Quarry. 12. This Court in the judgment in George Joseph v. Commissioner of Excise and others [2015 KHC 873] has held that a Partnership Firm is not a juristic person. A Partnership is an association of persons and is only a compendious reference to all those persons put together. A Partnership Firm is not a legal entity different and distinct from its Partners. Whoever is the Managing Partner represents the interest of the rest. 13. In these writ petitions, the Explosives Licences are issued in favour of the respective Managing Partners of the Partnership Firms. The Explosives Licences Acknowledgements refer to the Letters of Intent issued to the Firms. They also refer to the Survey Numbers of properties for which the Letters of Intent have been issued. In the circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to process the applications for Quarrying Lease submitted by the petitioners treating Ext.P3 Explosives Licences as issued to the Managing Partners representing the respective Partnership Firms, who are petitioners in these writ petitions.