T SULOCHANA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions can be disposed of together. In W. P. No. 2157 of 1980 the impugned order is that of the 1st respondent directing granting of licence in respect of one Little Krishna cinema theatre in favour of Smt. D. Vijayakumari, the 3rd respondent, herein. The controversy in the case depends on the interpretation of a clause in a will dated 12th March, 1974, executed by one T. Butchi Ramaiah. The said Butchi Ramaiah, who was the owner of theatre known as Little Krishna in Guntur town, executed the said will dated 12th March, 1974 and bequeathed half share in the theatre in favour of his major daughter Smt Damuluri Vijayakumari and the other half to his minor daughter Padmavathi. When he executed the will the licence for running the theatre was in his name. So he directed that after his death the licence relating to the 'Little Krishna' shall be transferred in the name of his second wife T. Sulpchana, the writ petitioner herein. It is pertinent to note that under the . said will he has given another theatre 'Krishna Picture Palace' to his son by his first wife and it is directed that the licence in his favour should be transferred so far as that theatre is concerned in favour of his first wife Bharatamma. The relevant clause may be noted which is in Telugu. <IMG>judgement_172_andhwr2_1983_VISHU_172.jpg</IMG> It is admitted that after his death the licence was transferred in the name of the petitioner as directed in the will. Further it is alleged in the affidavit that a partnership deed was executed in respect of this theatre being the half share to the minor daughter T. Padmavathi and six anas share to the 3rd respondent and two anas share to her husband and the licence should continue in favour of the petitioner and she shall manage the theatie. It is averred in the affidavit that subsequent to the deed of partnership dispute arose and the 3rd respondent's husband insist that the licence should be transferred in his name and when she refused he threatened her with dire consequences and he and his wife the 3rd respondent filed an application before the Joint Collector, the 2nd respondent herein not to renew the licence in the name of the petitioner. Thereupon the 2nd respondent licensing authority by its order dated 20th April, 1980, refused to renew licence in favour of either of the parties and directed the Tahsildar, Guntur to take immediate action to close the theatre with immediate effect. Against the said order the 3rd respondent and the petitioner filed appeals on the file of the 1st respondent-Government. The Government by its order dated 6th May, 198A, directed renewal of licence in favour of the 3rd respondent and allowed her appeal. The Government dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Now the said order is the subject- matter of the Writ Petition No. 2157 of 1980.

(2.) After the order of the Government, the licence was granted in favour of the 3rd respondent herein on 13th May, 1980. But in view of the order in W. P. No. 2157 of 1980 suspending the order of the Government directing renewal in favour of the 3rd respondent the licence was again cancelled on 18th May, 1980 Challenging the said order of the licensing authority the 3rd respondent filed a separate Writ Petition No. 2249 of 1980 and obtained suspension of that order and thus she is running the theatre as originally directed by the Government by its order dated 6th May, 1980. Thus both the writ petitions virtually constitute the claim and counter claims for the renewal of licences and the decision in Writ Petition No. 2157 of 1980. governs Writ Petition No. 2149 of 1980.

(3.) Sri T. Bali Reddy who appeared on behalf of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2157 of 1980 mainly urged that the order of the Government is vitiated being contrary to the direction contained in the will aid the legatees are bound by the direction in the will. He further urged that the licencing authorities are bound to implement the directions in tha will which state that the licence must be in the name of the petitioner who is the guardian of the minor daughter who is the owner of half share in the theater in question. On the other hand Sri Ramayya, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2249 of 1980 and appsaring for the 3rd respondent in Writ Petition No. 2157 of 1980 urged that the direction in the will has not the effect of disentitling his client to obtain the licence in her favour once she is the absolute owner of the half share under the will and in any view the licensing authority is not bound by the directions in the will.