S.S. Sekhon, Member (T) - (1.)THE Miscellaneous Intervention application to bring the other partner as a co-appellant in this appeal and the appeal are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.)When the Miscellaneous application was called none appeared for the applicant and is therefore dismissed.
The appeal is taken up for disposal. The appeal is against the older of the Commissioner, who after considering the request to reconstitute the partnership firm to a proprietary concern, since one of the partners Mr Vivekanand R Bhanushali, had expressed his willingness to resign from the firm and on considering that Vivekanand R Bhanushali vide his letter dated 2.8.2002 had requested for issue of Rule 9 Customs Pass which he is stated to have surrendered on 14.9.1987 and since the requests made were contrary, he heard both the partners and after hearing found that as per Clause 13 of the Partnership Deed between the two partners, which clearly states that "In case of dispute amongst partners, the same shall be referred to the Arbitrators to be appointed by each party in dispute and in case of difference between the Arbitration, the same shall be referred to an umpire to be appointed by the Arbitrators whose decision shall be final and binding upon all the parties and every such reference shall be deemed to be an arbitration within the meaning of Indian Arbitration act for the time being in force." the order directing both partners of the CHA Licence No. 11/694 to take up the dispute to the Arbitrators to be appointed by them as per the Partnership Deed. He also ordered the CHA Licence No. 11/694 inoperative with immediate effect till the final decision of the arbitrators is received. This appeal is against the present order.

(3.)AFTER hearing the Ld Consultant for the appellant, it is found that:
a) there is force in the submission made that the impugned order is illegal and passed without jurisdiction inasmuch as the CHA Licence Regulations 1984 did not provide for making a CHA Licence inoperative. More so, when there is no charge that the obligations made under the CHA Licence Regulations, 1984, all obligations have been fulfilled by the partnership concern and no contravention of the said Regulations or the Customs act by the said partnership firm i.e. the licencee has been brought on record. The order as regards rendering the licencee inoperative would not only be damaging the business of the partnership concern but also the livelihood of the employees of the CHA licencee without any fault on their part. The order of inoperation is therefore required to be set aside.

b) The Collector's direction to the two partners to go for arbitration as per Clause 13 of the Partnership Deed has to be complied by the partners, since decision on the request of Rule 13 Customs Pass made by Vivekanand R Bhanushali and or rendering the partnership firm into a proprietary concern as per the applications pending before him are to be disposed consequent to such Arbitration proceedings. No decision on these requests, made by the individual partners, can be arrived at pending resolving of their interse dispute through arbitration. It is in their own interest to get a decision, on the individual requests, therefore they are required to get arbitration award expedited. The Commissioner is however free to place the partners on notice to get the arbitration settled within a time frame and or reject the individual applications of both partners if the settlement is not arrived at within the time framed fixed by him.