IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18251 of 2009() -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ASHOK MEDICALS (RETAIL) A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNERS (1) SRI.T.CHANDRAN AND (2) SRI. T. SURENDERAN BOTH RESIDING AT THAYYULLATHIL HOUSE, P.O. PUTHUPPANAM, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DT., PIN – 673 105. BY ADVS. MR.N.M.MADHU, MR.M.K.SADANANDAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- THE ASST. DRUGS, CONTROLLER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DRUGS CONTROLLER, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2009 ALONG WITH WPC.NO.18289 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C)s18251 &18289/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 10th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Almost identical contentions are raised in these writ petitions. Therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. I will refer to the facts in Writ Petition No.18251/2009 in the first instance. 2. Petitioner is a licensee under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Petitioner is a partnership firm and in those proceedings they are purported to be represented by two persons, who are described as Managing Partners in Ext.P1 partnership deed. One of the partners Mr.T.H.Rajan died on 1.4.2009. Going by clause 14 of the partnership deed, an automatic dissolution of the firm does not come about therein. But the legal heirs of the deceased partner are entitled to join the partnership, if they so desire. A member of the family to which the partners also belong, instituted a Suit as O.S.91/2004 before the Sub Court, Vadakara, alleging that the business of the firm is actually a co- W.P.(C).18251 & 18289/09 2 ownership business and that the assets of the firm are properties of the family. Plaintiff in the Suit is also a partner in the firm. The Sub Court, as evidenced by Ext.P3, passed a preliminary decree for partition. The assets of the firm are also directed to be partitioned. The decree has not become final. 3. In the meanwhile, taking note of the death of one of the partners of the firm, it became necessary to obtain a renewal of the licence in the name of the reconstituted firm or issuance of a fresh licence as such. This is by reason of clause 6 of the licensing conditions. Accordingly, Ext.P4 application has been preferred by M/s. T.Chandran and T.Surendran claiming to be the Managing Partners of the licensing firm. 1st respondent has not taken a decision on the application. The deeming provision in the Rules contemplates the currency of a licence for a period of three months from the date on which a fresh licence or renewal is required, by reason of the reconstitution. That period has also expired on 30.6.2009. It is in these circumstances that the writ petition has been filed. But for the death of W.P.(C).18251 & 18289/09 3 one of the partners, in a firm which has ten persons, the licence issued by the 1st respondent, could have continued to be operated till 2012. Reconstitution of the firm by execution of a fresh partnership deed, might take some time. But the dissolution of the firm has not necessarily come about, by death of one of the partners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the remaining partners are also interested in the partnership business being continued. 4. In the circumstances, 1st respondent shall take a decision on Ext.P4, treating it as an application for renewal or as an application for fresh licence as the case may be, after notice to the applicants in Ext.P4 as also the other residuary partners and one of the legal heirs of the deceased partner, T.H.Rajan. Address of such persons shall be furnished by the applicants in Ext.P4. After notice to such persons, a decision shall be taken within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the 1st respondent decides to renew the licence or issue a fresh licence as the case may be, it is made clear that the W.P.(C).18251 & 18289/09 4 continuance of the partnership business, thereafter, shall be without prejudice to the contentions of the parties to Ext.P3, either in the course of final decree proceedings or in an appeal against the decree as such. The interim order passed by this Court shall continue to be operative till a decision is taken by the 1st respondent in the manner aforementioned. 5. The aforementioned directions shall apply in relation to Writ Petition No.18289/2009 also, in equal measure. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs