ORDER The 2nd Petitioner and the 2nd respondent are brothers. Both of them have constituted a firm, by name G. Rajender Reddy & Company. The firm has been undertaking civil contracts. It is stated that the firm filed wits for recovery of sums to the tune of about Rs.30 crores, from the Government and that the same are pending. 2. According to the 2nd petitioner, the 2nd respondent retired from the partnership firm In 3-9-2005, and that he has not only addressed a letter, to that effect, but also as authorized him to take necessary steps, to cause the entries made in the registers maintained by the Registrar of Assurances, the 1st respondent herein modified accordingly. It is stated that consequent upon the retirement of the 2nd respondent, the firm was reconstituted, in the name of 2 Vikas Reddy and Company the 1st petitioner herein. 3. The petitioners claim to have submitted t an application, in the prescribed form, to the 1st respondent, to cause necessary alterations in the registers, consequent upon the retirement of the 2nd respondent, from the partnership firm. The grievance of the petitioners is that in stead of acceding to the request, the 1st respondent has issued letter, dated 13-2-2006, stating inter alia that the 2nd respondent informed him that he did not retire from the partnership firm at all, and accordingly, refused to take any steps. They seek appropriate directions, in this regard. 4. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit, stating inter alia that he did not retire from the firm at all. 5. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that according to the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act (for short “the Act”), the 1st respondent has no discretion, except to act upon the application filed under Sections 60 and 63 of the Act. He contends that the Act does not contemplate any enquiry, in the matter of causing entries, or alterations. 6. Sri K. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, submits that the 2nd petitioner has misused certain blank papers signed by the 2nd respondent, and had fabricated the alleged letter of retirement. He contends that the 1st respondent has indicated the most appropriate course of action, and that no exception can be taken to it. 7. He contends that the 1st respondent has indicated the most appropriate course of action, and that no exception can be taken to it. 7. According to the 2nd petitioner, his brother and partner, the 2nd respondent herein, retired from the firm, by name G. Rajender Reddy and Company. A letter dated 3-9-2005 is said to have been addressed to him, by the 2nd respondent, in this regard. On the basis of the said letter and the contents thereof, he filed an application, dated 24-10-2005, before the 1st respondent, with a request to make necessary entries in the concerned registers. Before the 1st respondent initiated any action, on this application, the 2nd respondent addressed a letter, dated 26-10-2005, stating that he never retired from the partnership firm, and that the alleged letter of retirement is a fabricated one. It was in this context that the 1st respondent expressed his inability, to accede to the request of the 2nd petitioner. 8. It is true that Section 60, dealing with the recording of alterations in the firm name and principal place of business, and Section 63, providing for recording of changes and dissolution of the firm, do not contemplate any specific enquiry by the 1st respondent. At the same time, it cannot be said that the 1st respondent must act mechanically, on the applications filed under Sections 60 and 63 of the Act, before him, without making any effort, to satisfy himself whether the alleged alterations or changes have taken place, at all. Even if the provisions are silent on this aspect, verification becomes mandatory, because of the reason that the resultant changes would have their own effect on the rights and obligations of the concerned persons. It becomes a facet of natural justice. Therefore, it becomes imperative for the 1st respondent, to verify and enquire whether the alleged changes have taken place, as a matter of fact. Such verification, must however be confined to the factum of amendments and not the justification, or the consequences, thereof. To expect that the 1st respondent must act mechanically on the application filed under Sections 60 and 63 of the Act, even if there is a strong denial by the affected party, would amount to reducing the power, the exercise of which is to result in serious consequences, to an empty formality. To expect that the 1st respondent must act mechanically on the application filed under Sections 60 and 63 of the Act, even if there is a strong denial by the affected party, would amount to reducing the power, the exercise of which is to result in serious consequences, to an empty formality. It is in this context that the information furnished by the 2nd respondent that he did not retire from partnership firm at all, was taken into account, by the 1st respondent. 9. When the 1st respondent was informed that the 2nd respondent did not retire from the firm at all, it was not open to him to cause alterations in the entries relating to the firm. It is not as if the mere refusal on the part of the 1st respondent would put an end to the rights of the petitioners, if in fact the 2nd respondent has executed a letter of retirement. He can certainly file a suit for dissolution of the firm, or for declaration to the effect that the 2nd respondent ceased to be the partner of the firm. Therefore, this Court does not find any basis to grant any relief to the petitioner. 10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It shall be open to the petitioners, to work out their remedies, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.