1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No.237/2011 In Writ Petition No.1261/2006 (D) [Rajkumar Mohansingh Thakur .vrs. The Hon’ble Minister, State Excise, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others] ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND P.D. KODE, JJ. DATE : NOVEMBER 29, 2011. Heard Shri V.S. Kukday, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Shyam Ahirkar, learned AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3 and Shri S.G. Jagtap, learned counsel for respondent nos.4 and 5. Challenge is to the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge rejecting Writ Petition No. 1261/2006. According to Advocate Kukday the partnership deed executed by deceased husband of respondent no.4 in favour of the present appellant is not in dispute and hence its verification even after death of said husband on 20.4.2001 ought to have been completed and if accepted, the new firm should 2 have been permitted to undertake the business. Advocate Jagtap for respondent nos.4 and 5 states that the partnership between respondent nos.4 and 5 and deceased Mohansingh was duly approved on 9.8.1997 by the Commissioner and it has to continue till it is submitted by other similar recognized/accepted partnership. He contends that presently the earlier firm which is recognized by the revenue authorities is looking after the business. We have seen the relevant clauses in both the partnership deeds. The effect thereof on ongoing business needs to be evaluated and for that purpose the legal provisions also need to be understood. In this situation, the policy decision of the Government that such dispute must be resolved by the competent civil court, has been rightly applied by learned Single Judge. We do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity. However, looking to the nature of controversy, we permit the appellant to file appropriate civil suit in accordance with law and if such civil suit is filed, the same shall be decided expeditiously. With this direction, LPA is dismissed. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande