IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2011 / 22ND ASWINA 1933 WA.No. 1519 of 2011() AGAINST THE INTERIM ORDER IN I.A. 14267/2011 IN WPC.16240/2011 Dated 28/09/2011 APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 6 & 7: 1. GEORGE PUTHOKKARAN, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. JOSE PUTHOKARAN, PUTHOKARAN HOUSE, I.S. PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT 12TH FLOOR, R.D.S. FLATS, NEAR PASSPORT OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN – 36. 2. CYRIAC IYPE, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. P.C. IYPE, PUTHERICKAL HOUSE, MARKET ROAD, COCHIN – 35, NOW RESIDING AT ST. FRANCIS XAVIER'S CHURCH CROSS ROAD (WEST), COCHIN – 682 018. BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.A.SHAJI SRI.K.BIJU RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5: 1. M/S. COCHIN WINES & DRUGS, 'POONAM RESIDENCY', MATHAI MANJOORAN ROAD, COCHIN -18, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER LAZAR CHAKKOLA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, TAXES (A) DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 3. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, ERNAKULAM – 681 018. 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, ERNAKULAM – 682 018. 6. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, CENTRAL ZONE, COCHIN – 25. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. GEORGE MECHERIL. R1 BY ADV. SRI. C.C. THOMAS. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Ag. C.J.& P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.A. NO. 1519 OF 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.N. Ramachandran Nair, Ag. C.J. Appellants are additional respondents 6 and 7 in W.P.(C) 16240 of 2011. Petitioners in that writ petition is a partnership re-constituted on 10.10.2006 which applied for renewal of bar licence. When renewal was declined, petitioners in that writ petition contended that partners who retired on 10.10.2006 continued to be partners of the old firm which should be granted renewal of licence. Appellants' case is that once they are retired unconditionally from the partnership firm after settling accounts and so much so for the purpose of renewal of the licence, petitioners in the writ petition cannot drag them as partners. 2. We are in complete agreement with this because petitioners in the writ petition also have no case that the appellants' continues to be partners of the new firm. In fact, as of now, only the re-constituted firm survives and so much so, this writ appeal is allowed modifying the impugned order of the learned Single Judge as follows: W.A. 1519/2011 2 The appellants not being partners shall not in any way be accountable or responsible for the business carried on by the re-constituted firm which is the petitioner in the writ petition. The writ appeal is allowed to the extent of declaring the position as above. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE) P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) KNC/-