M VISWANATHAN Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR CUDDALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent dated 9.10.1997 in his proceedings Na.Ka.c3/100521, and quash the same, and consequently direct the respondent to renew the "C Form licence of the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner is a lessee of a property, wherein he is conduct a cinema theatre by name "Muthiah Talkies" at Cuddalore. It is his case that he was exhibiting cinematography exhibition in the said theatre without any break and he has obtained the licence, the period of last licence was expired on 17.9.1991. Before the expiry of licence, he applied for renewal of the "C Form licence to the respondent with all necessary certificates. But no order has been passed by the respondent on the application for renewal of "C" form licence not "E" permit has been granted pending disposal of the above application. THE petitioner was therefore, compelled to move this Court in W.P.No. 15076 of 1991. As per order dated 29.10.1991, learned Judge of this Court directed the respondent to pass final orders on the renewal application within ten days, and if no order could be passed within that time, the authorities were directed to issue "E" permit. In spite of that direction, no order has been passed by the respondent on the renewal application and they started issuing" E" permit every month. On 18.9.1996, that was also refused to be given. It is said that Chief Electrical Inspector's Certificate and Structural Soundness Certificate continue to remain valid till date, and there is no prohibition on in granting the "C Form licence. Repeated demands have been made for renewal of the "C Form licence, which have not been considered by the respondent. On 15.10.1996, a legal notice was also issued. But the same was also not taken seriously by the respondent, and therefore, another writ petition was also filed as W.P.No. 15324 of 1996 before this Court. As per order dated 18.10.1996, learned Judge of this Court again directed the respondent to consider and dispose of the application of the petitioner for renewal of the "C Form licence, within a period of one month and in the meanwhile also issue "E" Form permit. In spite of the order of this Court, the grant was not given. On 12.11.1996, again the petitioner issued lawyer's notice to the respondent. A contempt application was also filed before this Court and on 18.11.1996, the respondent wanted the petitioner to file certain documents to consider his renewal application. THE petitioner appeared in person and filed the documents. On 20.11.1996, the petitioner received a communication, stating that he was given "E" permit for a continuous period of five years, and therefore, there cannot be any further action on the application for renewal. THE same was objected to by the petitioner by various representations. It is said that "E" form permit has been given from time to time only pending consideration of the application for renewal of "C Form licence, and the respondent is purposely avoiding the passing of orders on the same. THE renewal of the lease deed was also submitted and the same was returned to the petitioner by the communication dated 5.12.1996. THE order dated 20.11.1996 of the respondent was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.133 of 1997. An order was again passed by a learned Judge of this Court, staying the communication dated 20.11.1996, and the same was also communicated to the respondent. THE petitioner also made a representation on 28.2.1997. THE petitioner again filed W.P.No.5100 of 1977, before this Court, to compel the respondent to pass orders on the renewal application. Learned Judge directed the respondent to pass final orders within a period of two months. THEreafter, the impugned order was passed on 9.10.1997, stating that the application is not in proper form. THE respondent relies on Rule 120 of the Cinema Regulations Rules, and was of the view that the application has not been made by the proper person and therefore, renewal cannot be granted. THE said order is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) IN the decision reported in KrishnaKishore Firm v. The Government of A.P. Krishna Kishore Firm v. The Government of A.P. Krishna Kishore Firm v. The Government of A.P. , A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 2292. their Lordships considered, what is meant by "Legal possession" under the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulations) Act, 1955. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the judgment are relevant for our purpose, which read thus: