T SAMBAINGAM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks to question the rejection of the application of the petitioners for renewal of 'C' form licence by respondents 1 to 3.

(2.) According to the petitioners, originally a permanent cinema licence was granted to M/s.V.K.Ramaswamy, T.P.A.Rajappa and A.R.C.Rajammal, all the three being co-owners of the site, building and equipments of Rajaram theatre. In 1976, the petitioner and one Kesavan purchased 50 per cent of the shares in the property and as such from 1976 the petitioners, Kesavan and V.K.Ramasamy are the co-owners and licensee of the theatre along with respondents 4 and 5, being the sons of V.K.Ramasamy. From the year 1976, it is the petitioner who is continuously looking after the theatre inclusive of the day-to-day administration, paying tax etc. Subsequently, on the death of Kesavan, his son, the sixth respondent became co-owner in the place of Kesavan. The licence stood in the name of four co-owners and it was finally renewed from 20.1.1997. (20.1.1997 to 30.9.1999) The petitioner by his application dated 26.8.1999 sought for renewal, but the Licensing Authority insisted on getting signatures of all the owners. By order dated 23.9.1999, the application was rejected by the third respondent and the petitioner filed an Appeal No.184 of 1990 before the second respondent who granted an order of interim stay on 29.9.1999. The petitioner was running the theatre on the strength of the said order and by virtue of the licence under Form 'E'. The appeal was rejected by order dated 5.11.1999. A revision was filed before the first respondent. As no orders were passed in the petition for interim stay filed by the petitioner, he filed W.P.No.19520 of 1999 which was ordered on 8.12.1999 directing the first respondent to dispose of the stay petition within two weeks and the main petition within three weeks. The revision petition was dismissed by the first respondent by order dated 1.2.2000 without giving any hearing to the petitioner and hence the order was vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice. Hence the above writ petition.

(3.) It may also be mentioned at this juncture that the petitioner had filed Arbitration O.P.No.72 of 1999 on the file of the District Court, Salem, for the appointment of Arbitrators in terms of agreement between parties. The said proceeding was pending. According to the petitioner, in terms of clause 7 of the agreement parties shall not involve in any activity prejudicial to the welfare and development of the theatre and any dispute between the parties shall be referred to arbitration containing five arbitrators.