1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2214 of 2022 1 - Royal Travels Through Its Managing Partner Sayyad Anwar Ali S/o Sayyad Ahmad Ali, Aged About 52 Years, C/o. Royal Travels, Shop No. 03, Pagaria Complex, New Bus Stand, Pandri, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Corporate Affairs, A Wing Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi 110001, District : New Delhi, Delhi 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Commerce And Industry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Registrar, Firm And Society, Block-1, Third Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) with WPC No. 2270 of 2022 1 - New Royal Travels Through Its Managing Partner Sayyad Anwar Ali, Son Of Sayyad Ahmad Ali, Aged About 52 Years, C/o Royal Travels, Shop No. 03, Pagaria Complex , New Bus Stand, Pandri Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Corporation Affairs, A Wing Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi – 110001. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Commerce And Industry, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh PAWAN KUMAR Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2025.08.06 10:30:58 +0530 2 3 - Registrar Firm And Society, Block - 1, Third Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. V.V.S. Murty, Sr. Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Agrawal, Advocate For State : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, GA For UOI : Mr. Sharad Mishra on behalf of Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon’ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, JJ Judgment on Board 04/08/2025 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. Since the common question of law is involved in both the cases, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners herein are challenging the constitutional validity of Section 58(3) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (for short Act of 1932) stating that Section 58(3) of Act of 1932 is unconstitutional, void and violative of Article 13 and 19 of the Constitution of India. 3. At the outset, Mr. Murthy, learned senior counsel submits that the petitioners are not pressing the relief in respect to questioning the Constitutional validity of Section 58(3) of the Act of 1932. However, they have made a representation to the State Government by way of Annexure P-9 to consider their case for registration in the light of Section 58(3) Act of 1932 which is pending for consideration. 4. Learned State counsel does not oppose the above submission. 5. Be that as it may, in view of Section 58(3) Act of 1932 the State Government is directed to decide the representation (Annexure P-9) of the petitioners in accordance with law within a period of three 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order in accordance with law by passing reasoned and speaking order. 6. Accordingly, both the petitions are disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Pawan