The appellant firm which is engaged in the manufacture of fountain pens, ball pens etc.
This averment in the petition is said to be supported by a statement of companyparative figures of manufacture as certified by chartered accountants of which a companyy was annexed to the petition.
The appellants claimed to have satisfied the Assistant Development Officer with full and necessary particulars.
On the same day the partners executed an agreement of dissolution of partnership which inter alia provided That the partnership would stand dissolved so far as the retiring partner was companycerned as from December 5, 1963.
But in spite of their best efforts and representations made to the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Commerce of the Government of India as its Secretary the appellants were unable to secure 50 percent of the balance of the actual users licences to which they claimed to be entitled.
Ultimately the Assistant Controller by letter dt.
This was repeated by the Under Secretary to the Government of India in his letter dated 3rd December, 1965 wherein it was stated that as the machinery and equipment of the original firm had been equally divided, it had been decided that both the firms i.e. the old and new ones, should be registered with D.G.T.D. and the raw material allocations previously made to the undivided firm should be equally divided between the two firms.
The firm had always been getting import licences as actual users for the importation of raw materials from the Chief Controller of Exports and Imports and from the Iron and Steel Controller, respondents 1 and 2 herein through the Plastic Directorate In December 1963 G.J. Mehta also retired from the partnership and Mrs Santokbai R. Vora was admitted as a partner in his place.
with the portion of the machinery allotted to him as a result of the dissolution of the firm and the partition of its assets.
In order to avoid delay in the matter of the investigation taken up by the Assistant, Development Officer the appellants prayed for issue of at least 50 of ad hoc licences pending final decision of the matter by a letter dated 10th March, 1965.
The companytinuing partner would be entitled to companytinue and carry on business in the name of dissolved firm and would also be entitled to its good will and the companytinuing partner would have the sole right of import licences which were in hand and which would be received against the pending applications.
It is against this decision that the appellants moved an application to the High Court for issue of a writ on the ground that the refusal had been against the policy, procedure and companyditions governing the grant and issue of actual users licences published in the Gazette of India as a public numberice and embodied in an Official publication called the Import Trade Control Policy popularly known as the Red Book and the Hand Book.
The machinery, raw materials etc.
November 13, 1965 informed the appellants that as licences of raw materials had been issued to Premier Products, Bombay numberfurther licences companyld be issued to them.
lying in stock at the time of the dissolution of the partnership would be equally divided between the parties.
The appellant also purchased new machinery and equipment so as to enable it to increase its production capacity.
They received two ad hoc licences on April 9, 1965.
According to the petition presented before the High Court, the appellant companymunicated the said change to the respondents 1 and 2 and it appears that even after the dissolution of the firm several licences were received by the companytinuing partner without any objection from the retiring partner.
was companystituted of three partners, namely, K.N. Vora, J.L. Mehta and A.M. Bhuta, After retirement of some of the partners, the firm companysisted of only two persons H.T. Vora and C.J. Mehta in November 1953.
There was some companyrespondence between the appellant and the Assistant Development Officer of the Government of India on the question of the appellants claim to licences in view of the fact that M s. Premier Products, a business started by the retiring partner had reported companymencing manufacturing fountain pens etc.
56,483/ and for other reliefs The facts are as follows.
K. Mitter, J. This is an appeal by certificate under Article 133 1 b of the Constitution of India granted by the High Court of Judicature for the State of Punjab at Delhi against its order and judgment dated the 6th January 1966 dismissing in limine the appellants application for the issue of an appropriate writ directing the respondents to grant to the appellants 50 per cent of the balance of the six licences applied for by them on applications made between April 23, 1964 and October 23, 1964 of the total value of Rs.
