C.W.P. No.21119 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.21119 of 2010 Date of Decision.27.09.2011 M/s Northern Coir, Vill. Saidpur, Tehsil Derabassi, Distt. Mohali, Punjab through its Prop. Mrs. Manishwar Kaur .....Petitioner Versus Union of India through the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi 110 017 and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Vineet Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Kukkar, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition seeks for a writ of certiorari to quash the show cause notice issued on 11.06.2009 as to why the licence granted for processing of rubber shall not be cancelled. It is an admitted case that M/s Northern Coir was a partnership firm and registered as such and a licence had also been issued by respondent No.2 in the name of the firm. The partners were Manishwer Kaur and her husband Vipin Batra. It appears that there has been some disputes between them and the matrimonial discord resulted in the partnership being dissolved and dissolution deed was made in the year 2006. The wife, acting as a proprietor going by the same name M/s Northern Coir, has applied for renewal of licence treating herself as a proprietor and filing also the dissolution deed. Renewals have been done for three years till when the husband appears to have issued a notice to the C.W.P. No.21119 of 2010 -2- Rubber Board on 21.04.2009 contending that dissolution deed is a fabrication and the signatures found in the copy of the dissolution deed alleged to have been filed by the petitioner were not genuine. Under such circumstances, it appears that the official respondents have called upon the petitioner to file the original deed and to the notices issued by the official respondents, the petitioner has given a reply supplying the notarized copy of the dissolution deed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that 4th respondent has been harassing the petitioner in several ways and the act of resiling from the dissolution deed and information passed on to official respondents that there had been no dissolution is a deliberate attempt to further harass the petitioner. I do not think the officials respondents should be, in any way, joining issues on personal disputes between the parties and if official respondents have already acted on the dissolution deed and have been issuing renewal of the licence periodically, the same shall continue. The 4th respondent shall be advised to take appropriate legal redress in relation to the contention that the alleged dissolution deed was not true. The petitioner shall produce the original of the dissolution deed as and when demanded by the official respondents for mere inspection and take back the same for safe custody. 3. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms directing the officials respondents to effect periodical renewals provided, however, there are no violations of terms of licence and the petitioner makes out a case for an entitlement to obtain the retention of such licence. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE September 27, 2011 Pankaj*