ivil Appeal No 1548 of 1974
From the Judgment and Order dated 1212
1972 of the Bombay High Court in FA No 152 of 1972
VA Bobde BR Agarwala and RB Hathikhanwala for the Appellants
MS Gupta for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA J
This is an appeal by special leave granted under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench in First Appeal No 152 of 1972 the judgment having been delivered on December 12 1972
The appellants are a firm registered under the Partner ship Act 1932 and inter alia carry on the business of hire purchase of automobile vehicles
The appellants were the owners of a diesel truck complete with tools and other accessories
On January 24 1962 respondent No 1 hired the said truck from the appellants under a Hire Purchase Agree ment in writing of the same date
Under the said agreement respondent No 1 agreed to pay to the appellants a sum of Rs 10000 as initial hire charges and certain monthly hire charges
It was provided under the said agreement that on the payment of all the monthly hire charges and other amounts payable under the agreement 486 on the respective due dates and fulfilment of the other terms and conditions of the agreement respondent No 1 would have the option to purchase the said truck
However if any of the monthly hire charges were not paid or there was a breach of any of the terms and conditions of the agreement the appellants were entitled to take possession of the truck
Until respondent No 1 validly exercised the option to purchase the said truck the said truck was to remain the property of the appellants
Respondent No 2 is the guarantor
Respondent No 1 failed to pay the monthly hire charges to the appellants as provided under the agree ment
In fact he paid only the initial hire of Rs 10000 and hire charges for one month only
Giving up certain claims for damages and other items the appellants filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division at Nagpur for recovery of a sum of Rs 1342223 p against the re spondents
Several issues were framed by the learned Trial Judge and they were all decided in favour of the appellants
However the learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that it was not maintainable in view of the provi sions of section 692 of the Partnership Act 1932
The appellants preferred an appeal against this decision to the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench
The said appeal was however dismissed by the High Court upholding the view of the learned Trial Judge regarding the non maintainability of the suit
It is against this decision that the present appeal is directed
In order to appreciate the controversy before us it is necessary to take note of a few further facts none of which is disputed
The appellant firm was registered under the Partnership Act 1932 on November 2 1960
There was a change in the consti tution of the firm on July 1 1962 but we are not concerned with that change
What is material is that on July 1 1967 there was another change in the constitution of the firm whereby two of the then partners retired and one new part ner namely Smt
Sarita Agrawal joined as a partner of the said firm and two minors namely Ashish Kumar and Rohit Kumar were admitted to the benefits of the said partnership firm
On the said date namely July 1 1967 two of the then partners namely Smt
Sheela R Agrawal and Shri Ramkishan retired as aforestated from the said partnership firm
The suit was instituted on July 22 1968
The notice regarding the change in the constitution of the said firm as aforesaid was given to the Registrar of Firms on August 28 1968 and a note was taken of the said change in the Register of Firms subsequently
Thus as pointed out by the learned Trial Judge on the date when the suit was filed two partners shown as partners in the appellant firm in the relevant entries in the Register of Firms had 487 already retired one new partner had joined the said firm and two minors had been admitted to the benefit of the said partnership firm and no notice had been given to the Regis trar of Firms in respect of these changes
The notice re garding these changes was given to the Registrar of Firms subsequently and noted on November 19 1968
Section 69 of the said Partnership Act deals with the effect of non registration of firms
Sub section 2 of the said section which is material for the purposes of this appeal runs as thus 2
No suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm
 In the present case the suit filed by the appellants is clearly hit by the provisions of sub section 2 of section 69 of the said Partnership Act as on the date when the suit was filed two of the partners shown as partners as per the relevant entries in the Register of Firms were not in fact partners one new partner had come in and two minors had been admitted to the benefit of the partnership firm regard ing which no notice was given to the Registrar of Firms
Thus the persons suing namely the current partners as on the date of the suit were not shown as partners in the Register of Firms
The result is that the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of sub section 2 of section 69 of the said Partnership Act and the view taken by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court in this connection is correct
Although the plaint was amended on a later date that cannot save the suit
Reference has been made to some decisions in the judgment of the Trial Court however we do not find it necessary to refer to any of them as the position in law in our opinion is clear on a plain reading of sub section 2 of section 69 of the said Part nership Act
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs
NPV Appeal dismissed


Summary:
On June 19 1962 the Government of Maharashtra issued a draft notification under Section 33 of the Bombay Provin cial Municipal Corporation Act 1949 and thereby proposed the formation of Kalyan Corporation by merging of munici pal areas of Kalyan Ambarnath Domoivali and Ulhasnagar
The proposal was resented to by the residents of the said areas and many objections and representations by persons companies and authorities including the municipal bodies of Ambarnath and Ulhasnagar were made
So far as Ulhasnagar was concerned it was stated that Sindhi Community after partition has settled at Ulhasnagar and to keep the identity of Sindhies distinct they had formed All India Sindhi Panchayat Federation
The said Federation challenged the draft notification by a Writ Petition before the High Court
On an assurance being given by the Government before the High Court that the representation made by the Federation would be duly considered the Writ Petition was allowed to be withdrawn
As per the assurance the Federation was given personal hearing on their representation
Only the Federa tion was heard none of the other representationists was afforded any hearing though their objections were duly considered
After considering the matter in the manner aforesaid the Government decided to exclude Ulhasnagar from the proposed Corporation and accordingly a notification under section 32 of the Act was issued
The Corporation was thus Constituted excluding Ulhasnagar
Save as aforesaid no other alteration was made in the notification
406 The Residents of Ambarnath municipal area were not satisfied
They moved the High Court challenging the validi ty of the notification issued under section 32 of the Act
Their main contention was that there has been hostile dis crimination in the matter as only the Federation was heard and none else
They also asserted that the establishment of a Corporation without Ulhasnagar keeping in view the geo graphical contiguity was unintelligibe and incomprehensible
According to them it was arbitrary and opposed to the object of the Act
Federation and others interested in the proceedings were allowed to intervene and they supported the stand taken by the Government which was the main respondent
The State pleaded that the formation of Corporation was an extension of the legislative process and as such section 3 was a piece of conditional legislation and the notifica tion issued in exercise of that power cannot be said to have been vitiated by non compliance with the principles of natural justice
According to the State it was not obligato ry for the State to issue a preliminary notification over again before the final notification excluding Ulhasnagar was issued
The High Court took the view that the decision to ex clude Ulhasnagar was taken by the State abruptly and in an irrational manner and that the decision was against the object of the Act
On the legality of the procedure followed by the Government the High Court held that once a decision was taken it was obligatory on the part of the Government to reconsider the proposal as a whole so for as the rest of the areas were concerned
The High Court without quashing the impugned notifica tion directed the State Government to reconsider the propos al under subsection 3 of the Act either to exclude or include any area and accordingly make amends in the notifi cation
It was also directed that the Petitioners and the Federation be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any final decision in the matter is taken
Against the aforesaid decision of the High Court only interveners have preferred these appeals
The State and Kelyan City Corporation have not appealed
Counsel for the appellants reiterated the stand taken by the Government before the High Court and urged that the State had a wide discretion in the selection of areas for constituting the Corporation and the Court cannot interfere with such discretion
State s power to consti 407 tute a corporation is legislative in character and rules of natural justice have no application
It was urged that the state had complied with all the statutory requirements and it was not necessary for the state to go through that exer cise again
It was further urged that the decision of this Court has been disregarded and a binding decision of a co ordinate bench of the same Court in Village Panchayat Chi kalthane  Anr
vs State of Maharashtra has been ignored
Allowing the appeals this Court HELD In our system of judicial review which is a part of our constitutional scheme this Court holds it to be the duty of Judges of superior Courts and tribunals to make the law more predictable
The question of law directly arising in the case should not be dealt with apologetic approaches
The law must be made more effective as a guide to behaviour
It must be determined with reasons which carry convictions within the Courts professions and public otherwise the lawyers would be in a predicament and would not know how to advise their clients
Subordinate Courts would find them selves in an embarrassing position to choose between the conflicting opinions
The general public will be in a dilem ma to obey or not to obey such law and it ultimately fails into disrepute
417D F It is needless to state that the judgment of superior Courts and Tribunals must be written only after deep travail and positive vein
One should never let a decision go unless he is absolutely sure it is right
The law must be made clear certain and consistent
But ceritude is not the test of certainty and consistency does not mean that there should be no word of new content
The principle of law may develop side by side with new content but not in consistencies
There could be waxing and waning the principle depending upon the pragmatic needs and moral yearings
Such develop ment of law particularly is inevitable in our developing country
417G H 418A B The rules of natural justice are not applicable to legislative activity plenary or subordinate
The procedural requirement of hearing is not implied in the exercise of legislative powers unless hearing was expressly prescribed
419F The High Court therefore was in error in directing the Government to hear the parties who are not entitled to be heard in law section 3 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 1949
419F G The Government in the exercise of its powers under section 3 is 408 not subject to the Rules of natural justice any more than is legislature itself
419F Mahadeolal Kanodia vs The Administrator General of West Bengal AIR 1960 SCp 926 Sri Bhagwan and Anr
vs Ram Chand and Anr
  at 1773 Union of India vs Raghbir Singh   The Nature of Judicial Process by Benjamin N Cardozo Bates vs Lord Heilsham of St Marylebone and Others 1 WLR 1373 Tulsipur Sugar Co Ltd vs The Notified Area Committee Tulsipur  and Baldev Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh  referred to