GIRISH SUDHAKARRAO BHELONDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.l & 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.