IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17635 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.J.B AND COMPANY, KOTHAMANGALAM, REP.BY MANAGING PARTNER BOBY IYPE, AGED 44, S/O.LATE IYPE, AVATHOOTT HOUSE, ELEMBRA, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CONTROLLER, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL METROLOGY, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. - 695 033. 3. INSPECTOR, LEGAL METROLOGY, KOTHAMANGALAM. 4. SMT.HOWAMMA JOHN, W/O.LATE JOHN, AGED ABOUT 64, AMMAMKULAM HOUSE, THANKALAM, KOTHAMANGALAM - 686 691, PARTNER, M/S.J.B & COMPANY, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY GP SRI.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).17635/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims to be the managing partner of M/s.J.B and Company, originally constituted in the year 1992 with himself and his father as partners. A weigh bridge has been started in Thrikkariyoor Village. Subsequently, the 4th respondent and the maternal uncle of the petitioner also joined the partnership. Registration for the weigh bridge was issued by the Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Ernakulam. Petitioner sought for a renewal of the registration. It seems that the 4th respondent then objected to the same. The dispute amongst the partners has now been referred to a retired District Judge for arbitration. In the meanwhile, the last date for stamping the weigh bridge is 30.6.2009 under the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act. 3rd respondent informed the petitioner as per Ext.P5 requiring the petitioner to produce evidence to show that he as a managing partner, has actual control of the weigh bridge. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the same as W.P.(C).17635/2009 2 Ext.P8 before the statutory appellate authority and has also filed an application for a direction as Ext.P9. Writ petition has been filed seeking a direction in relation to Exts.P8 and P9. 2. There is a dispute amongst the partners of the firm. But that should not come in the way of the registration being renewed. But the 4th respondent is entitled to be heard, if she has raised any objection in this regard. 3. 2nd respondent shall therefore, take a decision on Ext.P8 as early as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner as also the 4th respondent. In the meanwhile, order shall be passed on Ext.P9 within two weeks from today, after notice to the aforementioned parties. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs