LAWS(MAD)-1997-12-49

R DHASAIYAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

Decided On December 08, 1997
R DHASAIYAN Appellant
V/S
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS seek the assistance of this Court for issuance of the writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to G. O. No. (l-D) 685, Home Dept. , (Cinema-2) dated 30. 9. 1997 issued by the 1st respondent, confirming the order of the 2nd respondent in D. Dis. (d) Cinema appeal No. 57 of 1996, dated 5-12-1996, confirming the order of the 3rd respondent in R. Dis. No. 28715 of 1995, dated 13-4-1996, and the quash the same.

(2.) THE petitioners, who are man and wife have sought interference of this Court, prohibiting the 4th respondent from exhibiting cinema films in his semi-permanent theatre by name'kothandaram Talkies'THE relevant facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition could be summarised as follows:-

(3.) IT is alleged in the writ petition that even though the 4th respondent has purchased 46 cents of land, in fact he is possession of larger area and the main auditorium is situated in the excess area of 10 cents. In regard to that 10 cents, it is said that the 4th respondent has taken an illegal lease deed, from persons who have no right over the same. IT is their case, that fictitious document has been created, without having any right over the property. The 4th respondent has also moved the authorities for getting the licence renewed. Apart from the petitioners, various other persons have also made serious objections, and ultimately his application for renewal was rejected by the licensing authority. The matter was taken in appeal. The appellate authority remanded the matter, holding that the application has to be treated as an application seeking fresh licence, and not an application seeking renewal. After remand by the appellate authority, the licensing authority allowed the application, and consequently'c form licence has been granted to the 4th respondent. Though an appeal and revisions have been filed before the authorities, the same were without any success. IT is those orders have been challenged in this writ petition.