Asokan, a newly inducted partner. Thereafter, it is submitted that the firm was conducting the business on the strength of the licence issued to it. The 4th respondent had initiated litigation stating that she had not signed the declaration which was produced before the 2nd respondent by the 5th respondent for procuring Ext.P1 order. Though the writ petitions preferred by the 4th respondent were closed directing her to take up the matter in appropriate civil proceedings, she was successful in getting the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge to issue directions for registration of crimes against suspected officers and private parties and for conduct of investigation into the matter. Thereafter, by Ext.P10 order which is alleged to have been issued without notice to the parties, the 2nd respondent, relying solely on the registration of a vigilance case on the complaint raised by the 4th respondent as also on a direction issued by the Government for revocation of sanction for reconstitution of the partnership, revoked Ext.P1 sanction and directed the reconstitution of the partnership by including the 4th respondent and her minor son into the partnership if they are otherwise eligible as per rules. On the ground that Ext.P10 was
