ORDER
K. Ramaswamy, J.
1. The first petitioner is a partnership firm consisting of petitioners 2 to 5 as partners. They sought for registration of the firm under Section 58(1) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (Act LX of 1932) (for short 'the Act') with the name 'the South India Textiles' to do business at Secunderabad as distributors of Madras Coats Limited situated at Ambasamudram, Tamilnadu State. The application was returned with a direction to delete the word 'India' from the name of the firm stating that the word 'India' is prohibited under the provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 (for short 'the Emblems Act'). Subsequently they made a representation to the First respondent State Government on May, 2, 1979 seeking permission to use the name 'the South India Textiles' By the impugned order it was negatived. Assailing the legality thereof, the writ petition has been filed.
2. The contention of the petitioner which merits acceptance is that there is no improper use of the word 'India' in the name 'The South India Textiles' and it does not offend the Emblems Act nor offends Sub-section (3) of Section 58 of the Act.
3. Section 58(1) of the Act enjoins registration of a firm with the Registrar of the Firms to carry on the business as a Corporate person in the manner prescribed under Sub-section (1) of Section 58 of the Act. The petitioner has applied for registration of a firm under Section 58 of the Act.
4. Sub-section (3) of Section 58 of the Act postulates thus:
'A firm name shall not contain any of the following words : 'Crown' 'emperor' 'empress' 'empire', 'imperial' 'king' 'Queen' 'Royal' or words expressing or implying the sanction, approval or patronage of Government except when the State Govt. signifies its consent to the use of such words as part of the firm name by order in writing.'
In this ease, the word 'India' does not signify either sanction, approval or patronage of the Government. Therefore, the sanction of the Government is redundant under Sub-section (3) of Section 58 of the Act.
5. With regard to Emblems Act Section 3 provides Prohibition of Improper use of certain emblems and names :
'Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no person shall except in such cases and under such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government use, or continue to use, for the purpose of any trade, business, calling or profession, or in the title of any patent, or any colourable imitation thereof without the previous permission of the Central Government or of such officer of Government as may be authorised in this behalf by the Central Government.
6. Under the schedule the relevant clause is 7 which reads thus :
'7. Any name which may suggest or be calculated to suggest
(1) the patronage of the Government of India or the Government of a State.
Therefore, notwithstanding anything contained in any law whether the emblem or name purports to use for the purpose of any trade, business calling or profession as specified in the schedule it shall not be used except with the previous permission of the Central Government or of the State Government. In this case, the use of the word 'South India' does not reflect upon any State Government or the Government of India nor signifies any patronage. South India is not a State. It is a common name for many a firm or proprietary concerns. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that it is improper use within the meaning of Section 3 of the Emblems Act.
7. Accordingly, the refusal of the permission to use the word 'India' in the firm's name is in excess of the power. The impugned order is accordingly quashed. The second respondent is directed to register the name of the firm of the petitioner as per law under Sub-section (1) of Section 58 of the Act.
8. In a similar writ petn. No. 9455 of 1986 this court allowed the writ petition on 18-9-1986 under the Emblems Act and a direction was given to permit the petitioner therein to use the word 'Hind' for the purpose of transacting the business. The same ratio applies to the facts of this case.
9. The writ petition is allowed. But in the circumstances of the ease without costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 250/-.