( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4603 OF 2000 Smt. Ashawwa Laxminarasayya Nagapuri, R/o Paranda, Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad, through her Power of Attorney Raju Naragowda Kancharla, R/o Osmanabad, District Osmanabad. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The learned Minister for State Excise, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 3. The District Collector, Osmanabad. 4. The Superintendent of State Excise, Osmanabad. 5. Shri Dashrath Rajayya Battinwar, R/o Paranda, Tq. Paranda, District Osmanabad. 6. Smt. Padmawati Shriniwas Punnamwar, R/o Paranda, Tq. Paranda, District Osmanabad. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. P.K. Joshi, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.R. Korade, AGP for the respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. U.B. Bilolikar, advocate for the respondents No. 5 and 6. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 5th July, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges order ( 2 ) dated 6th September, 2000 (Annex-E to the petition), rendered by Hon’ble State Minister for Excise, whereby the petitioner was asked to continue partnership with the respondents No. 5 and 6 in the business of country liquor under CL-III license. 2. There is no dispute about the fact that originally, CL-III license was granted in favour of the petitioner’s husband by name Laxminarasayya. He was the sole proprietor of the country liquor shop run by him at Paranda (Dist. Osmanabad). Somewhere in 1993, he entered into partnership with the respondents No. 5 and 6 to run the country liquor shop as a joint venture. On basis of their common application, by order dated 10th October, 1993, the partnership was approved. It is undisputed fact that the partnership between the original license holder – Laxminarsayya and the respondents No. 5 and 6 was unregistered partnership. They had agreed to share the profits to the extent of 34% by said Laxminarsayya and 33% each by the respondent No. 5 and 6. Needless to say, the country liquor shop was being run by them in pursuance to the unregistered agreement of partnership. There is also no dispute about the fact that original license holder Laxminarsayya died on 2nd July, 1999. The petitioner is his widow. She filed applications to the Collector, ( 3 ) Osmanabad and sought renewal of the country liquor license only in her name. The Collector, however, directed that the dispute about partnership and the succession shall be got resolved through the civil Court. The original license was, therefore, directed to be suspended. The business naturally came to standstill. The respondents No. 5 and 6 thereafter preferred an appeal against the order of suspension. The Commissioner of Excise rejected their appeal and held that only the petitioner was entitled to continue the CL-III license as the legal representative of deceased license holder – Laxminarasayya. The respondents No. 5 and 6, therefore, filed revision application. By the impugned order, the Hon’ble State Minister allowed the revision application and directed that the parties may get their rights settled through the civil Court and until the civil dispute is resolved, the partnership business shall be continued under the same license. The petitioner claims that she alone is entitled to run the business and, therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned A.G.P. ( 4 ) 4. Question involved in this petition is : “Whether the petitioners can be compelled to continue the unregistered partnership in the business of CL-III license with the respondents No. 5 and 6 notwithstanding her unwillingness to do so ?” 5. So far as unregistered partnership is concerned, it is to be presumed that such partnership comes to an end on death of a partner or at the will, as the case may be. No specific dissolution order is required from the Court if a partner dies. The death of a partner brings to an end such partnership business. The authorities have observed that there is nothing in the agreement of partnership which required continuation of the partnership of the respondents No. 5 and 6 even after death of the original license holder – Laxminarasayya. The partners of unregistered partnership need not wait for declaration of dissolution of such business by the civil Court if one of them dies. The remaining partner may form a new partnership if they agree to continue with the business. However, they cannot be compelled to continue the same partnership by allowing the heirs of deceased partner to ( 5 ) join them nor the heir of deceased partner can be compelled to continue such partnership business. The unregistered partnership between two (2) or more partners would be continued only at the will of those remaining partners and the heir of deceased partner. This being the settled legal position, the petitioner could not be compelled to continue the partnership business with the respondents No. 5 and 6, particularly, when she was absolutely unwilling to do so. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents No. 5 and 6 invited my attention to Government circular dated 25-02-1994. By that circular, certain guidelines have been issued in respect of the grant of CL-III license. It appears that the new partners could be permitted, in place of the deceased license holder, only if the heirs of the deceased license holder would give their consent for such arrangement. It is true that the Government circular is silent as regards the policy pertaining to continuation of the partnership which was already joined by deceased license holder. As stated before, the death of the license holder automatically terminates the old partnership. It is obvious that such partners like the respondents No. 5 and 6 cannot have any right except and save their due share in the profits which accrued as on date of ( 6 ) death of the original license holder. They are only entitled to rendition of the accounts and the due shares alongwith accruals after settlement of the accounts. So, they may be eligible to put forth such a claim either by private settlement or through the legal process. Nothing more can be claimed by them as a matter of right. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 5 and 6 would rely on certain observations of learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 2571/2000. The perusal of the judgement of the learned Single Judge reveals that no particular ratio decidendi is expounded in the given case. The fact situation in case of “Laxman V. Kamble v. The Collector of Latur and others” (W.P. No. 2924/2000) appears to be akin to the facts obtained in the present case. It appears that similar view is taken by another learned Single Judge (Hon’ble Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) in the given case. The provision of section 42 (C) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 would make it amply clear that by the death of a partner, the partnership gets dissolved. It requires no mincing of words that the respondents No. 5 and 6 did not continue to remain partners of the unregistered partnership business on the happening of the event pertaining to death of deceased license holder – Laxminarasayya. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is quite unsustainable, being contrary to ( 7 ) the settled principles of law. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The order of learned Commissioner of Excise is restored in its place. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp4603-2000