By this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are sons of deceased Sudhakar, challenged the order dated 25.11.2003 passed by Respondent No.2 Assistant Registrar of Firms and contend that the said order needs to be quashed and set aside and notice of change submitted by the petitioners on 16.03.2004 must be directed to be inquired into and change in Constitution of Firm should be recorded as per their notice.

2. I have heard Shri. Khapre, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri. Fulzele, learned AGP for respondents No.1 & 2 and Shri. Bhattad, learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 5 and Shri. Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.6.

3. After hearing parties, the first question which needs to be looked into is whether in terms of Chapter XVII, Rule 18 of Bombay Appellate Side Rules, the learned Single Judge of this Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the dispute. Shri. Khapre and Shri. Gupta, learned counsel have contended that Respondent No.2 exercises quasi judicial functions while according to the learned AGP and Shri. Bhattad, learned counsel, the functions are only administrative and hence even if any writ is to be entertained, it must lie before the Division Bench of this Court.

4. In view of the issue which arises initially for determination, the facts necessary only for said purpose are being mentioned. It is not in dispute that there was a registered Partnership in the name and style of M/s. Ruby Ginning and Pressing Factory, which commenced its business from 21.06.1978 with its duration at will. The said Partnership was duly registered on 09.08.1978. It had five partners. Father of present petitioners viz.

Sudhakar had 20% share in profit, Respondent No.3 - Madhukar, Respondent No.4 Murlidhar, Respondent No.5 - Dilip and Respondent No.6 - Pradeep had also 20% share. These all five partners had equal share of profit at that time. Sudhakar expired on 21.04.1984 and after his death, the problems have started. The registered deed vide its clause (13) provided that in the event of death of any of the partner or his becoming incapable or retiring from firm, the firm would not be dissolved but the remaining partners would continue the business of the Firm.

5. According to the petitioners, after' the death of their father Sudhakar, they were brought up by their uncles, the other partners and a deed of Partnership admitting them as partners of said firm was entered into between the parties on 07.01.1993. The attention has been invited to the distribution of equal shares between three heirs of deceased Sudhakar i.e. each heir of Sudhakar was given 7% in his 20% profit share in original firm. It appears that certain properties were purchased and were recorded in revenue records in the name of the firm. Respondents No.3 to 6 approached Respondent No.2 to register a change and sought deletion of name of Sudhakar and for that purpose they submitted a Deed of Partnership dated 13.06.2003 with a deed titled continuation of partnership. They also mentioned that after death of Sudhakar, their share increased to 25% each in profit of the firm. On 25.11.2003, Respondent No.2 deleted name of Sudhakar because of his death and also amended the constitution of the firm as originally registered on 08.09.1978. It is the contention of the petitioners that thereafter because of this reconstitution, the respondents got their names deleted from the revenue records of immovable property purchased and then they learnt about aU this development and that the Deed of Partnership dated 07.01.1993 was never registered with Registrar of Firms and hence they moved Respondent No.2 for rectifying the errors by registering the Deed of Partnership dated 07.01.1993 and by recalling the order dated 25.11.2003 but Respondent No.2 has not taken any steps. He draws support from Change Report inquiry under Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.

6. The petitioners state that as certain properties wer