JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Shri S.P. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri O.P. Mishra and Shri J.S. Parihar for the petitioners. Shri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rahul Agarwal appears for respondent Nos. 6 and 7. Learned Standing Counsel was heard for State respondents. With the consent of the parties the writ petition was finally heard at the admission stage. 2. The petitioners have prayed for setting aside the order passed by Special Secretary, Geology and Mining Departments, State of U.P. dated 24.1.2008 allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of District Magistrate dated 11.9.2006, for issuing Form MM-11 to Shri Manu Agrawal for and on behalf of M/s Rai Bharat Das & Brothers and to stop him from carrying on the mining. The appellate authority has directed Form MM-11 to be issued to the firm with its original partners Shri Shyam Das Agrawal, Shri Ganesh Das Agrawal and Shri Shri Ram Agrawal the sons of the original partners. They have further prayed for a direction to the respondents not to interfere in the working and functioning of the petitioners in excavation, transportation, and lifting of the mineral ‘Silica Sand’; and to issue a direction to the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot restraining him from giving form MM-11 or any transportation form to respondent No. 8. 3. Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are, that in the year 1971, a firm in the name and style of M/s Rai Bharat Das and Brothers 84, Johnstongunj, Allahabad was registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 with Shri Lalta Prasad son of late Mahadeo Prasad; Narsingh Das and Ganesh Das both sons of Lalta Prasad; Shyam Das (minor) and Ram Das (minor), both sons of Bharat Das for carrying out mining work of ‘Silica Sand’ in village Pardawan, district Banda. A mining lease was granted to the firm on 18.1.1973 for ‘Silica Sand’ in village Pardawan Tehsil Mau, now District Chitrakoot for an area of 93.15 hectares. On 4.12.1981 the firm was granted another mining lease of ‘Silica Sand’ in village Kota, Tehsil Bara, District Allahabad for an area of 18.90 hectares. A mining lease was granted to the firm on 18.1.1973 for ‘Silica Sand’ in village Pardawan Tehsil Mau, now District Chitrakoot for an area of 93.15 hectares. On 4.12.1981 the firm was granted another mining lease of ‘Silica Sand’ in village Kota, Tehsil Bara, District Allahabad for an area of 18.90 hectares. In the lease deed dated 4.6.1971 in respect of ‘Silica Sand’ of village Pardawan district Banda the lessee was described as : “THIS INDENTURE made this fourth day of June 1971 corresponding to fourteenth day of Jaistha 1893 Saka Samvat between the Governor of Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the State Government which expression shall where the context so admits be deemed to include the successors and assigns of the one part AND M/s Rai Bharat Das & Brothers 81, Johnstongunj, Allahabad a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (2 of 1932) having their registered office at Allahabad and consisting of the partners (1) Lalta Prasad s/o Late Mahadeo Prasad, (2) Narsingh Das s/o Lalta Prasad, (3) Ganesh Das s/o Lalta Prasad, (4) Shyam Das (Minor s/o Bharat Das (5) Ram Das (Minor) s/o Bharat Das, all residents of 84, Johnstongunj, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Lessee which expression where the context so admits be deemed to include all the said partners, their respective heirs, executors, legal representatives and permitted assigns of the other part.” 4. In the lease deed dated 4.12.1981 in respect of ‘Silica Sand’ in village Kota District Allahabad the lessee was described as : “THIS INDENTURE made this fourth day of December 1981 corresponding to thirteenth day of Agrahayana 1903 Saka era between the Government of Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the State Government which expression shall where the context so admits be deemed to include the successors and assigns) of the one part and Sri Lalta Prasad s/o Late Sri Mahadeo Prasad Agarwal aged 78 years, 4/0 127 Pandariba, Allahabad, (2) Sri Narsingh Das Agarwal s/o Lalta Prasad Agarwal aged 49 years, r/o 127 Pandariba, Allahabad, (3) Shri Ganesh Das Agarwal s/o Sri Lalta Prasad Agarwal aged 39 years, r/o 127 Pandariba, Allahabad, (4) Sri Shyam Das Agarwal s/o Sri Bharat Das Agarwal aged 27years, r/o 127 Pandariba, Allahabad, (5) Sri Ram Das Agarwal s/o Shri Bharat Das Agarwal aged 26 years, r/o 127 Pandariba, Allahabad, all carrying on business in partnership under the firm name and style of M/s. Rai Bharat Das and Brothers registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (9 of 1932) and having their registered office at 84, Johnstongunj, in the town of ALLAHABAD (hereinafter referred to as the lessee which expression shall where the context so admits be deemed to include all the said partners, their respective heirs, executors, legal representatives and permitted assigns) of the other part.” 5. It is alleged that Shri Lalta Prasad died on 27.11.1982. The firm was dissolved and was reconstituted as required under Section 42 (c) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932; and with the consent of remaining four partners of the firm, the new firm was reconstituted with six partners namely Shri Narsingh Das Agarwal, Shri Ganesh Das Agarwal, Shri Shyam Das Agarwal, Shri Ram Das Agarwal, Shri Ghanshyam Das Agarwal and Shri Jairam Agarwal. 6. Shri Narsingh Das Agarwal died on 4.4.1986. The firm was again dissolved and it is alleged that it was reconstituted on 18.4.1986 effective from 4.4.1986 consisting of remaining five partners namely Shri Ganesh Das Agarwal, Shri Shyam Das Agarwal, Shri Ram Das Agarwal, Shri Ghanshyam Das Agarwal and Shri Jai Ram Agarwal. 7. It is alleged by the petitioners that a family settlement was arrived at amongst the family members in respect of the assets of the three firms namely M/s Rai Bharat Das & Brothers (the petitioners); M/s Bajrangbali & Co. 7. It is alleged by the petitioners that a family settlement was arrived at amongst the family members in respect of the assets of the three firms namely M/s Rai Bharat Das & Brothers (the petitioners); M/s Bajrangbali & Co. and M/s Maruti Enterprises. Some disputes had arisen between the parties. One Shri Lal Saheb was appointed as arbitrator. The family settlement dated 27.8.1988 provided for the following arrangements : “(a) The Firm M/s Rai Bharat Das & Brothers and the respective lease of village Pardwan was given to the family/sons of Bharat Das Agrawal. (b) The firm M/s Bajrangbali & Co. and M/s Maruti Enterprises and the leases sanctioned in the name of the said firms were given to the sons of the deceased Narsingh Das. (c) The firm M/s Maruti Enterprises and the leases sanctioned in the name of the said firm in villages Jamahora and Chiri, both in District Allahabad, were exclusively given to Sri Ram Agrawal (appellant No. 3), son of deceased Narsingh Das Agrawal.” 8. It is alleged that the family settlement was accepted by all the parties, and that in terms of the settlement Shree Ram Agrawal-respondent No. 8 is looking after the works of M/s Maruti Enterprises and its leases in village Chiri, District Allahabad. The leases in dispute under the family settlement dated 27.8.1988 had fallen to the shares of sons of Shri Bharat Das Agrawal namely Shri Shyam Das Agrawal, Ram Das Agrawal and Shri Ghanshyam Das Agrawal. They inducted Shri Mohan Agarwal their brother in the firm and reconstituted the firm as M/s Rai Bharat Das & Brothers including the three brothers and Shri Mohan Agrawal as partners. 9. A renewal application was submitted on 11.1.1992 by the reconstituted firm M/s Rai Bharat Das and others for renewal of the lease w.e.f. 18.1.1993 along with a deed of reconstituted firm dated 1.9.1998. Shri Manu Agrawal was appointed and constituted by the partners of M/s Rai Bharat Das Agrawal and Brothers as their ‘Power of Attorney’ on 7.4.2001 for conducting mining operations, obtaining form MM-11 and representing the matters of the firm before the department and to appear before the authorities. It is stated in paragraph-20 of the writ petition that the power of attorney was irrevocable. 10. It is stated in paragraph-20 of the writ petition that the power of attorney was irrevocable. 10. Shri Manu Agrawal filed a Writ Petition No. 21376 of 2004 for renewal of the mining lease on which an order was passed by this Court on 30.7.2004, to pass orders on renewal application within three months. Shri Manu Agrawal deposited the requisite fees of Rs. 40/- and Rs. 66,370/- as a dead rent on 28.9.2004 in pursuance of the directions of the District Magistrate dated 28.9.2004 and thereafter a letter was written to the Mines Officer to inform the Director of Geology & Mining. The applications of renewal are alleged to be still pending with the State Government under Rule 24-A (6) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Shri Manu Agrawal got a mining plan prepared on 15.3.2005 for submission to the Indian Bureau of Mines, Jabalpur. The Bureau asked for a bank guarantee vide its letter dated 22.3.2006 under Rule-23F (3) of the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1998. It is stated that on 6.4.2006 the mining plan was approved by the Indian Bureau of Mines, Jabalpur and a copy was filed with the State Government. It is stated that Shri Manu Agrawal regenerated the mining activities on 7.4.2001 and started mining operations after spending money and time. It is alleged that Shree Ram Agrawal having no right to interfere started disputes and made an application on 27.5.2006 alleging that the power of attorney in favour of Shri Manu Agrawal was revoked on which notices were issued to the petitioner to submit a reply. The District Magistrate, Mirzapur by his order dated 11.9.2006 rejected the claim of Shree Ram Agrawal. This order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 53444 of 2006 and that by judgment dated 24.4.2007 the writ petition was decided with following directions : “From the perusal of the record, it appears that the power of attorney was executed in favour of respondent No. 10 Sri Ghanshyam Das Agarwal, has signed the same and Rai Bharat Das Agarwal has also signed as witness. The petitioners are the sons of late Nar Singh Das Agarwal and Sri Nar Singh Das Agarwal is the son of late Sri Lalta Prasad Agarwal. The petitioners are the sons of late Nar Singh Das Agarwal and Sri Nar Singh Das Agarwal is the son of late Sri Lalta Prasad Agarwal. In the year 1988, the firm was reconstituted and it has been mentioned that Sri Ghanshyam Das Agarwal and Sri Jai Ram Agarwal have retired from erstwhile business on 27.8.1988 and after 1988 the petitioners have not raised any objection at any point of time. The question involved in the present writ petition are whether the initial partners of the family have retired in the year 1988 or not. Whether Nar Singh Das Agarwal has relinquished himself from the partnership. These are the questions of facts to be decided by the authority concerned. The respondent No. 2 on the basis of representation and on the basis of pleadings of the parties has considered the matter and has passed the order. As the questions involved in the present writ petition are questions of facts to be appreciated on the basis of relevant record, therefore in our view, it will be. appropriate that the petitioners may approach the appellate authority for the grievances which is to be adjudicated by the authority concerned. As the petitioners have a clear alternative remedy by way of filing an appeal under Section 15 of the Rules of 2002, therefore, in our opinion, it is not a fit case to be interfered by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. There shall be no order as to costs. Dated : April 24, 2007 Sd/- Hon’ble R.P. Misra, J. Sd/- Hon’ble Shishir Kumar,J.” 11. The petitioner filed an appeal before the State Government under Rule 15 of the U.P. Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2002 (in short, the Transportation Rules 2002) which was decided by order dated 24.1.2008, giving rise to this writ petition. 12. The State Government, in its order dated 24.1.2008, has found that the reconstitution of the firm was not acceptable under Rule 48 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, without previous consent in writing of the State Government in Rule 37 (1)(a) and (b) of the Rules. The firm was not authorised to effect transfers of assignment without information the State Government and without previous consent in writing of the State Government. The firm was not authorised to effect transfers of assignment without information the State Government and without previous consent in writing of the State Government. The execution of power of attorney in favour of Shri Manu Agrawal was also made without the consent in writing of the State Government and thus no one except the original firm can be treated to be lessee. Only those persons, who were the heirs of the original partners, could be included in the partnership firm. After the death of Rai Bharat Das Agrawal, Lalta Prasad Agrawal and Narsing Das Agrawal, their sons Shree Ram Agrawal, Jai Ram Agrawal, Jai Jai Ram Agrawal and Sitaram Agrawal would be the partners of the firm. The last three brothers have not made any claim and thus only Shree Ram Agrawal son of late Narsingh Das Agrawal, Shri Shyam Das Agrawal and Shri Ganesh Das Agrawal both sons of late Rai Bharat Das Agrawal could be the partners and that the ‘Ravanna’ in Form MM-11 can be issued only in their names and appears to be proper and necessary. The order of the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot dated 11.9.2006 was set aside. 13. Shri S.P. Singh, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the State Government did not have authority in deciding the appeal treating it as a revision under Section 78 of the U.P. Minor Mineral (Concessions) Rules 1963. It had no power to decide and make a declaration like a civil Court in respect to constitution and reconstitution of a partnership firm. In the present case ‘Silica Sand’, is a major mineral and thus the State Government has no power to regulate the issue of mining and excavation, as major minerals are governed by the Minerals Concessions Rules, 1960, and that appropriate authority for filing revision in the rules is Central Government. 16. Shri S.P. Singh submits that the High Court had relegated the parties to the appellate authority under the Transportation Rules 2002. Instead of deciding the appeal under these Rules the State Government assumed the powers of the civil Court to make a declaration. Such power could only be exercised by a Court competent to summon the witnesses for cross-examination. The appeal could not be treated as a revision to decide these matters. Instead of deciding the appeal under these Rules the State Government assumed the powers of the civil Court to make a declaration. Such power could only be exercised by a Court competent to summon the witnesses for cross-examination. The appeal could not be treated as a revision to decide these matters. After reconstitution of the firm in the year 1988, a renewal application was filed along with the certificate of partnership firm and is pending with the State Government. The partnership was acknowledged and recognised by the State Government and that the reconstituted partnership firm is the lessee of the State Government and is carrying on business till the date. The State Government did not understand the significance of issuance of form MM-11 to a person, who is not a party before the State Government. In a case of issuance of form MM-11 the question of declaration of right, title and interest of survivorship does not arise. Shri Shyam Das Agrawal was the only partner having power to execute power of attorney. The revisional authority had failed to appreciate that the firm was reconstituted in the year 1988 and that the State Government has permitted the firm to file a renewal application. The power of attorney in favour of Shri Manu Agrawal cannot be re-shuffled or dismantled during the course of deemed renewal under the Mines Act, 1952. Section 85-B of the Act provides that all returns and notice require to be furnished or given or communication sent by or on behalf of the owner of a mine shall be signed by the owner, agent or manager of the mines or by any person to whom power of attorney is given or delegated by the owner of the power of attorney. 15. Shri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate, on the other hand, submits that the mining leases have not been renewed so far. The power of attorney holder cannot be assigned the lease. The reconstituted firm was not registered. An unregistered firm cannot sue for the rights which it does not possess. The form MM-11 is a right to transport excavation minerals. Such a right is not given to a stranger. The partition, given the shape of a family settlement, was not registered. The power of attorney holder cannot be assigned the lease. The reconstituted firm was not registered. An unregistered firm cannot sue for the rights which it does not possess. The form MM-11 is a right to transport excavation minerals. Such a right is not given to a stranger. The partition, given the shape of a family settlement, was not registered. The firm alleged to be reconstituted twice, was not registered and that one of the partners of the reconstituted and unregistered firm is not authorised to execute irrevocable power of attorney on behalf of the firm, virtually transferring the lease which was not renewed. Shri Manu Agrawal, holding power of attorney of only one of the partners of reconstituted and unregistered firms could not be allowed to transport ‘Silica Sand’ virtually usurping all the powers of the firm which it had in the matter of lease deed and for which only a right to renewal exists in favour of the rightful claimants. 16. Rule 15 of the U.P. Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules, 2002 made under Section 23-C (2) of the Mines Act of 1957 provides : “15. Appeal.—Any person aggrieved by any order made by the District Officer or the Officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf, in exercise of the powers conferred upon by these rules,— (a) may appeal to the State Government in Form F within ninety days of the date of communication of the order; (b) every appeal shall be accompanied with a fee of Rs. 500 to be deposited under the head and manner as the State Government may, by order, specify; (c) the State Government may confirm, modify or set aside the order appealed as it may deem fit and proper.” 17. Rule 33 of the Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960 prohibits transfer of lease without the previous consent in writing of the State Government. The lessee cannot assign, sublet, mortgage or in any other manner transfer the mining lease or any right, title or interest therein or enter into or make any arrangement contract or understanding whereby the lessee will or may be directly or indirectly financed to a substantial extent by or under which lessees operation or undertaking will or may be substantially controlled by any person or body of other person other than lessee. 18. 18. The power of attorney dated 30.3.2001 executed before Notary Public on 7.4.2001, in favour of Shri Manu Agrawal is not a registered document, nor does it take into consideration the fact that Shri Rai Bharat Das Agrawal was not a partner of the firm. His sons had executed the power of attorney on 7.4.2001. The firm M/s Rai Bharat Das & Brothers was not registered after it was reconstituted. An unregistered firm has no right to sue for the enforcement of contract or for recovery of properties of the firm and a power of attorney holder, in whose favour the power of attorney was made by sons of only one of the original partners was not the lawful attorney of the firm. The law prescribes that the reconstituted firm be registered. The unregistered firm could not have applied for renewal of the licence and could not have transferred the business or its properties to a third party. The application by Shri Manu Agrawal for issuing form MM-11 was as such not a valid application. The State Government did not commit any error in refusing to recognise the reconstituted firm in terms of some family settlement and the person holding power of attorney by some of the partner of reconstituted firm. 19. In Loonkaran Sethia v. Ivan E. John, AIR 1977 SC 336 , the Supreme Court held that Section 69 is mandatory in character, and its effect is to render a suit by a plaintiff in respect of a right vested in him or acquired by him under a contract which he entered into as a partner of an unregistered firm, whether existing or dissolved, void. A partner of an erstwhile unregistered partnership firm cannot bring a suit to enforce a right arising out of a contract falling within the ambit of Section 69. 20. A partner of an erstwhile unregistered partnership firm cannot bring a suit to enforce a right arising out of a contract falling within the ambit of Section 69. 20. In Shreeram Finance Corporation, M/s v. Yasin Khan, AIR 1989 SC 1769 , it was held that where on the date when the suit was filed, two partners shown as partners in the appellant-firm in the relevant entries in the Register of Firms had already retired, one new partner had joined the said firm and two minors had been admitted to the benefit of the partnership firm without notice to the Registrar of Firms in respect of the changes, Section 69 (2) of the Partnership Act, 1932 comes into play and that the suit was not maintainable. 21. In Sharad Vasant Kotak v. Ramniklal Mohanlal Chwda, AIR 1998 SC 877 it was held that the changes in the constitution of the firm will not affect the registration once made. Every time a new partner is inducted, fresh registration is not required to be obtained. However, the information about the change has to be given. In such case, the failure to comply an information attracts penalties under Section 69A of the Act. In that case the firm was registered and there was only a reconstitution of the firm and the first respondent, the plaintiff in this case, was the person whose name was shown in the Register of Firms along with the names of the appellants and therefore, there was compliance of Section 69 (2A). The Court was also dealing with the Maharashtra Amendment introduced by Act No. 29 of 1984 to the Partnership Act. 22. In the present case the firm was twice dissolved. It was first dissolved and reconstituted on the death of Shri Lalta Prasad on 27.11.1982. The new firm was reconstituted with six partners. On the death of Shri Narsingh Das Agarwal, the original partner on 4.4.1986 the firm was again dissolved and it is alleged that it was reconstituted on 18.4.1986 effective from 4.4.1986 consisting of remaining five partners. The family settlement dated 27.8.1987 changed the composition of the firm. The new firm was reconstituted with six partners. On the death of Shri Narsingh Das Agarwal, the original partner on 4.4.1986 the firm was again dissolved and it is alleged that it was reconstituted on 18.4.1986 effective from 4.4.1986 consisting of remaining five partners. The family settlement dated 27.8.1987 changed the composition of the firm. In order to effect the family partition the mining business under the lease of village Pardawan was given to Firm/sons of Rai Bharat Das Agrawal, Shri Shyam Das Agrawal, and Shri Ram Das Agrawal, were minors introduced to the benefit of the firm in the year 1971 and were partners of the reconstitution of the firm on the death of Shri Lalta Prasad Agrawal on 27.11.1982. The two minors, who had become major by the time of family settlement dated 27.8.1987, were the original beneficiaries of the firm. The dissolution of the firm at two stages namely on 27.11.1982 and on 18.4.1986 and reconstitution on family settlement on 27.8.1987 rendered the unregistered firm with no rights to enforce the contract namely the lease entered into with the State Government on 4.6.1971 and 4.12.1981 and for which the renewals have been sought and are pending consideration with the State Government. 23. The State Government in the impugned order dated January 24, 2008 has considered the rights of the firm and also Shri Manu Agrawal the ‘power of attorney’ holder from Shri Shyam Sunder Agrawal to request for Form MM-11 for transportation of the excavated minerals. After setting out the pedigree it found that Shri Lalta Prasad Agrawal, Shri Narsingh Das Agrawal, Shri Ganesh Das Agrawal and Shri Shyam Das Agrawal were the partners of the firm M/s Rai Bharat Das & Brothers. The agreement and mining lease dated 18.1.1973 were executed for 20 years in respect of 93.15 hectares in village Pardawan, District Chitrakoot in favour of the firm M/s Rai Bharat Das & Brothers. Shri Rai Bharat Das Agrawal was not the partner of the firm. His sons Shri Shyam Das Agrawal minor and Shri Ram Das Agrawal, minor were the partners at that time. Shri Lalta Prasad died on 27.11.1982 and Shri Narsingh Das Agrawal died on 4.4.1986. After the death of Shri Lalta Prasad, out of his three sons Rai Bharat Das Agrawal, Narsingh Das Agrawal and Ganesh Das Agrawal inherited his rights in the partnership firm. Shri Lalta Prasad died on 27.11.1982 and Shri Narsingh Das Agrawal died on 4.4.1986. After the death of Shri Lalta Prasad, out of his three sons Rai Bharat Das Agrawal, Narsingh Das Agrawal and Ganesh Das Agrawal inherited his rights in the partnership firm. Shri Narsingh Das Agrawal and Shri Ganesh Das Agrawal were already partners of the firm. After the death of Shri Narsingh Das Agrawal, his four sons Shri Shreeram Agrawal, Shri Jai Ram Agrawal, Shri Jai Jai Ram Agrawal and Shri Sita Ram Agrawal were entitled to inherit his share. The four sons of Shri Rai Bharat Das Agrawal namely Shyam Das Agrawal, Ram Das Agrawal, Ghanshyam Das Agrawal and Mohan Das Agrawal executed a ‘power of attorney’ in favour of their step brother Shri Manu Agrawal son of Shri Shyam Sunder Agrawal. Out of these only Shri Shyam Das Agrawal and Shri Ram Das Agrawal were authorised to execute ‘power of attorney’ as they were the only surviving partners. This power of attorney was not registered and is not admissible in evidence. 24. The State Government thereafter found that Shri Shyam Das Agrawal had withdrawn the ‘power of attorney’ dated 7.4.2001 on 3.5.2006 and thereafter Shri Manu Agrawal has no right whatsoever to represent the firm or to excavate the minerals. 25. It was then found that two sons of Shri Narsingh Das Agrawal were not interested in mining and that they had handed over their rights to Shri Shyam Das Agrawal. This fact is stated in the application of Shri Shree Ram Agrawal dated 26.7.2006 addressed to the District Magistrate and the Mining Officer, Chitrakoot. Out of four sons of Shri Narsingh Das Agrawal, only Shri Shree Ram Agrawal was interested in his father’s share. The other three sons did not made any claim. Thereafter it is alleged that on account of a family partition dated 18.8.1986 which was not registered, the unregistered family partnership deed was executed, according to which a partnership deed was executed on 1.9.1988 in which all the four sons of Rai Bharat Das Agrawal namely Shyam Das Agrawal, Shreeram Das Agrawal, Shri Ghanshyam Das Agrawal and Shri Mohan Das Agrawal were included as partners. This new partnership was not entitled to continue with any right in the mining lease as under Rule 48 of the Minerals Concessions Rules, 1960, such a transfer or assignment could be made only after informing the State Government, within one year of such transfer or assignment and further in Rule 37 (1)(a) and (b) the lease could not be transferred without the previous consent in writing of the State Government. The State Government refused to recognise the reconstituted firm after the family settlement on the ground that it would amount to transfer of the lease hold rights. 26. The reconstituted firm was not registered and partners were not brought on the records of the Registrar of Firms. The submission, that the reconstituted firm represented the interest of the original partners by inheritance, is attractive but cannot be accepted on the ground that after family partition the newly constituted firm was not registered. The Registrar of Firms had no knowledge of these changes in the partnership firm. It is not a case where the original partners continued in the firm by inheritance. The family of Shri Narsingh Das Agrawal and Shri Ganesh Das Agrawal had separated from the partnership leaving the sons of Shri Rai Bharat Das Agrawal, who was not the partner of the firm from the beginning. The other partners were inducted not as the heirs of either Shri Lalta Prasad Agrawal or Rai Bharat Das Agrawal, but as new partners in terms of the family settlement. 27. The competent authority is not required to issue Form MM-11 to unauthorised persons. The rules do not provide for transportation and storage of the minerals by a stranger. In the facts and circumstances as set out above I find that the reconstituted partnership firm was not registered and was not authorised to either apply for renewal or for Form MM-11 for transportation of the ‘Silica Sand’ from either village Pardawan Tehsil Mau District Chitrakoot or from village Kota Tehsil Bara District Allahabad. Shri Manu Agrawal holding power of attorney of Shri Shyam Das Agrawal is not the authorised representative of the firm and was not entitled to claim for issuance of Form MM-11 for removing the ‘Silica Sand’ and for its transportation or for any further mining. 28. The Transportation Rules, 2002 are applicable to both minor and major minerals. Shri Manu Agrawal holding power of attorney of Shri Shyam Das Agrawal is not the authorised representative of the firm and was not entitled to claim for issuance of Form MM-11 for removing the ‘Silica Sand’ and for its transportation or for any further mining. 28. The Transportation Rules, 2002 are applicable to both minor and major minerals. The State Government while deciding the appeal under the Transportation Rules 2002, was not only concerned with the issuance of Form MM-11 to the authorised person, but was also under directions of this Court in Writ Petition No. 53444 of 2006, decided on 24.7.2007, to decide the disputed question of fact. It did not commit any illegality to holding that the firm could only be represented by original partners. The firm has undergone several changes since 1971, when it was registered with the death of Shri Lalta Prasad on 27.11.1982 and then with the death of Shri Narsingh Das on 4.4.1986, it stood again dissolved under Section 42 of the Partnership Act. The Family Settlement and consequent distribution of assets and business between brothers has left the original firm with no rights to be enforced in the contract. The deeming provisions of renewal of leases under Rule 24-A (6) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, is not attracted in favour of a firm which was dissolved and has not been registered after its reconstitution. The family settlement causing retirement of some of the partners and consequent redistribution of assets of the firm in the family has changed the composition of the firm. There are no averments in the writ petition that the terms of contract, of the firm did not provide for its dissolution after death, and retirement of its partners. The firm will thus be treated to be reconstituted. It is not registered and thus it can enforce the rights under the lease. 29. The order dated 24.1.2008 passed by the Special Secretary, Geology & Mining Anubhag, Government of U.P does not require any interference. The writ petition is dismissed with the observations made in the judgment. ————