Notice to a power of attorney holder or partner is not sufficient service for determining individual liability of other partners.

The Petitioners, legal heirs of deceased mining lessees, challenged a demand of Rs. 86,41,20,698/- raised by the Deputy Director of Mines under Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act for alleged excess production

Subsequent to the demand, Certificate Case No. 30 of 2018 was initiated under the Odisha Public Demands Recovery (OPDR) Act.

The Certificate Officer substituted the Petitioners as 'Certificate Debtors' on his own motion after receiving a list of heirs from the mining department, without issuing prior notice or allowing substitution proceedings

The Petitioners contended they were never served the original demand notices or given a pre-decisional hearing

The State argued that notice to one partner or the Power of Attorney (POA) holder constituted valid notice to all partners under the Partnership Act

Section 21(5) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 regarding compensation for unlawful mining

Section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, and the Supreme Court precedents in Malabar Fisheries Co. v. CIT and Comptroller and Auditor General v. Kamlesh Vadilal Mehta, which establish that a partnership firm is not a separate legal entity but a collection of individual partners

Section 24 of the Partnership Act (notice to acting partners)

The principle from Quinn v. Leatham that a case is only authority for what it actually decides based on its specific facts

The Court rejected the State's argument that notice to a POA holder sufficed for all lessees. It analyzed the POA's text, finding it was limited to administrative renewals and did not authorize the receipt of statutory notices for financial liabilities

The Court held that since a firm is not a legal person, property and liabilities belong to individual partners; thus, individuals must be noticed before civil consequences are imposed

It found the demand notice dated 02.09.2017 was addressed generically to "M/s. H.G. Pandya & Others" rather than the "acting partner," rendering Section 24 of the Partnership Act inapplicable

The Court observed that the Certificate Officer’s unilateral substitution of legal heirs on the same day he received their names, without an application or notice, was a gross violation of the procedure prescribed under the OPDR Act

The Court quashed Certificate Case No. 30 of 2018 and the consequential warrants of sale. It directed the Petitioners to appear before the Deputy Director of Mines on 10th July 2026 for a fresh adjudication of the demand under Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act. The authorities were directed to provide relevant documents to the petitioners by 20th July 2026, allow six weeks for a reply, and pass a fresh order following due process and principles of natural justice.