THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO :774 of 2006 Date: 21.6.2010 Between: Balina Bhaskar Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND The Director of Mines and Geology, Hyderabad and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M. Subba Reddy Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : A.G.P. for Mines & Geology Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5 : None The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No :774 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside letter dated 13.10.2005 addressed by respondent No.3 to the petitioner wherein the former informed the petitioner that the respondents are going to act upon letter dated 2.5.2005 submitted by Respondent No.4. I have heard Sri M. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for Respondents 1 to 3. The petitioner is a partner in a firm, by name, M/s. Reliance Enterprises. The said firm comprised the petitioner and Respondent No.4 as its partners. Respondent No.4 was the managing partner of the firm; while the petitioner claimed to be its working partner. An application was made on behalf of the said firm for granting of mining lease in respect of a certain land. A similar application was made by Respondent No.5. According to the petitioner, the application filed by M/s. Reliance Enterprises was earlier in point of time and therefore, the said firm deserves preference over Respondent No.5 for granting of mining lease under the extant Rules. That through his letter dated 2.5.2005, Respondent No.4, who is the managing partner of the firm seeking to act to the detriment of the firm informed respondent No.3 that he is seeking to withdraw his application for grant of mining lease. Consequently, respondent No.3 addressed letter dated 13.10.2005, which is impugned in this writ petition. A counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.3 wherein it is inter alia stated that an application for quarry lease in place of prospecting licence was made by M/s. Reliance Enterprises on 27.11.2004, that respondent No.4 filed his affidavit on 2.5.2005 stating that he is withdrawing his quarry lease application and that accordingly respondent No.3 submitted proposals on 17.5.2005 to the Director of Mines and Geology for rejection of quarry lease application of the said firm and accordingly the Director of Mines and Geology vide his proceedings dated 10.8.2005 rejected the quarry lease application of the said firm. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit that the application of withdrawal was acted upon by rejecting the quarry lease application of the firm by the Director of Mines and Geology on 10.8.2005 is wholly improbable because on the petitioner’s representation dated 25.2.2010, he was given a notice 3.7.2010 asking him to appear for hearing on the application. In my opinion, there is no need for adjudication of this dispute because, admittedly, M/s. Reliance Enterprises was a partnership at will. The learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly admitted that in view of the differences between the petitioner and respondent No.4, his client filed O.S No. 238 of 2005 seeking dissolution of partnership and rendition of account. Under Section 43(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 in case where partnership is at will, the partnership automatically gets dissolved on one of the partners giving notice to the other partners of his intention to dissolve the partnership from the date mentioned in the notice or if no such date is mentioned, from the date of communication of the notice to the other partners. The fact that the petitioner filed suit in the year 2005 and that respondent No.4 received the notice in the suit is itself enough to hold that partnership itself had ceased to exist in the year 2005 and accordingly the application filed on behalf of the firm after its dissolution would be non-est in law. Therefore, the petitioner cannot insist that the application of the firm, which ceased to exist thereafter, should be considered. In my opinion, with the dissolution of the partnership firm, the cause raised in this writ petition does not survive for consideration and the writ petition is accordingly disposed of as infructuous. No costs. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 21st June, 2010 pnb