B VAYUNANDANA RAO Vs. DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER CHILAKALAPUDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are two main prayers in this rit petition filed by the petitioner describing himself as the managing partner, Minerva Talkies, Machili- patnam, Krishna District (1) to declare that the cinematograph licence in, his favour should be deemed to have been renewed from 1st March, 1973 as per rule 13 (7) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') and (2) to direct the 1st respondent (District Revenue Officer) to forbear from holding an enquiry or taking any further proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 13th April, 1972 issued by him.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are these:-The petitioner is the managing partner of a firm 'consisting of 14 partners which owns Minerva Talkies in Machilipatnam. He owns 1\8 share in the partnership assets. Prior to 29th May, 1972 the licence for the exhibition of shows was given to one Adinarayana Murthy who was the then managing partner of the firm. After he died, an application was filed by the petitioner on 28th March, 1972 to the District Revenue Officer for the transfer of the licence in his name as the managing partner. The 1st respondent by his proceeding? dated 25th April, 1972 transferred the licence and returned the B form licence making the necessary endorsements. That was also ratified in the partnership deed dated 29th May, 1972 registered with Income-tax Authorities. Under the terms of the said deed the petitioner was empowered to do all acts as are necessary for the purpose of partnership business including the obtaining of a licence for the Minerva Talkies, effecting necessary changes and representing the firm in all matters before the various authorities either under the Cinematograph Act or under the various Acts like Sales-tax Act and Income-tax Act etc. The licence for the Minerva Talkies as endorsed by the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 25th April, 1972 was valid up to 28th February, 1973. The licence was renewable for a further period of three years. The petitioner obtained all the necessary certificates and then made an application on 9th November, 1972 for renewal of the licence. The licence was neither refused nor renewed before the date of its expiry on 28th February, 1973. But on 27th February, 1973 at about 8-30 p.m. a notice was served on the petitioner informing him that he should appear before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar, for enquiry in connection with an objection petition filed by the 2nd respondent and other partners of the firm for grant of renewal in favour of the petitioner. This notice did not mention anything about the date or place of the enquiry. Then the petitioner gave a reply on 1st March, 1973 asking for a copy of the objection petition before the enquiry is taken up. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar then sent him another communication dated 9th March, 1973 stating that the enquiry will be taken up on 12th March, 1973 at the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bandar, and all the partners were asked to appear before him and file their petitions. The petitioner appeared on 12th March, 1973 and filed his representation. His objection was that there is nothing in the rules which provide for such an enquiry and that by reason of the rule 13 (7) (b) it should be deemed that the licence has been renewed for a further period of three years from 1st March, 1973. The District Revenue Officer then issued a notice dated 13th April, 1973 asking the petitioner to appear before him on 17th April, 1973 and place the necessary evidence to establish his ownership or lawful possession over the site, building and equipment etc. so that he could consider his request for renewal of the licence. It is against that notice the petitioner filed this writ petition.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by the and respondent it is stated by him that the partners found the petitioner mismanaging and misconducting the affairs of the firm in utter disregard and violation of the resolutions and the terms of the partnership deed. His management was, therefore, detrimental to the interests of the firm and its members, According to him, the petitioner deliberately misrepresented the facts and by his misconduct had the firm's account in the Go-operative Central Bank changed to his individual name in the Andhra Bank and got the licence of the firm changed to his name. It is alleged that some of the partners on 1st October, 1972 approached the petitioner to convene a general body meeting of the partners to discuss the position of the firm in order to take appropriate steps for better and profitable administration of the business of the firm. But the petitioner was not willing to accede to that request. A general general body meeting of the partners was convened by the partners themselves on 31st October, 1972 and one Venkata Dass was elected as the managing partner with immediate effect and later the 2nd respondent was elected as managing partner on 17th December, 1972. A resolution was also passed accordingly asking him to take charge from the petitioner and do all the necessary acts. The new managing partner issued a notice to the petitioner. In short, it is his case that the petitioner is no longer the managing partner of the firm and that a suit O.S. No. 153 of 1973 has been filed in the Court of the District Munsif, Bandar for dissolution of the firm and accounts. It is also his case that the petitioner suppressed all the facts and made the application for renewal.