- (1.) Adjudication in both these writ petitions hovers around a common lis, and therefore, both are heard together and are disposed of by a common order at this stage with the consent of all the parties. Succinctly stated, the facts which are common in both these petitions are that M/s. Balaji Marble Mines, Makrana, a registered partnership firm, having five partners, viz., Mukesh Kumar Rinva, Bhanwarlal Aukna, Bhanwarlal Choudhary, Rakesh Kumar Dhariwal and Kana Ram Burdak (Petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9873 of 2011) started business of marble mining and trading.
(2.) The partnership deed was duly registered with the Registrar of Firms on 17 th of November 2008. As transpired from the averments in the petition, uptil March 2009 the firm continued its pursuit of the business of mining and trading of marble. On 25th of April 2009, there was some alleged special event facilitating change in the constitution of the firm, which is the genesis of this litigation. As pleaded in the writ petition, on 25th of April 2009, out of the five partners of the firm, two partners viz., Kana Ram Burdak and Rakesh Kumar Dhariwal decided to call it a day and with a view to retire from the firm executed a partnership dissolution deed on the same day. The said dissolution deed was signed by all the partners and thereafter all the partners including the retiring partners submitted prescribed Form "E" with the Registrar of Firms, Nagaur on 14th of May 2009. The effect of submission of Form "E" changed the previous entry about the firm on 14 th of May 2009. When the change in constitution of the firm as a consequence of retirement of two partners came into offing, the requisite amount of the share of both the retiring partners was paid to them. In support whereof, the Bank statement of the firm is placed on record. It is also pleaded in the writ petition that after completion of the formalities of retirement of two partners, a supplementary deed was executed by the remaining partners on 1 st of June 2009.
(3.) It appears that there was some sense of discord amongst the original partners of the firm and the contentious issue apparently was the retirement deed and the subsequent events thereof. From the averments contained in the writ petition it can be conveniently churned out that respondent Rakesh Dhariwal was not happily disposed with the chain of events, and therefore, he made an endeavor to solicit information from the Mining Engineer, Ajmer under the Right to Information Act, pursuant to retirement deed and Form "E" submitted in this behalf. In response thereto, the Mining Engineer divulged him the requisite information on 24th of November 2009.;