C MUSALA REDDY Vs. JT COLLECTOR PRAKASAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed the writ petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the orders passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in D.Dis. No. 3424/83 dated Aug. 12, 1983. He claims that he is a holder of B.Form Licence issued in his favour on Sept. 30, 1977 and ever since, he has been exhibiting the cinematographs in Sri Lakshmi Theatre, Muthalapadu. He also applied for renewal for 1980-1981, 1981-1982 and 1982-1983 and renewal was granted in his favour. He also applied for renewal for 1983-1984 and by operation of the A. P. Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970, for short 'the rules' R.13(7)(b) the renewal shall be deemed to have been granted despite the transfer of the licence in the name of the third respondent. Under R.11(d) of the Rules, a letter of consent in writing of the original licencee, whenever there is a transfer of title to the effect that he has no objection to the licence being transferred in the name of the transferee, is mandatory. Since the letter of written consent was not obtained, the transfer is illegal on this ground also.

(2.) In the counter-affidavit filed by the third respondent, it is stated that the initial partnership consists of five persons including the father of the third respondent, the petitioner and three others and subsequently there was an arrangement between the three other partners who have agreed to sell their share of the partnership and the third respondent has purchased the same. Thereafter, on March 13, 1981, there was a registered partnership between the petitioner, the third respondent and his father. It may be mentioned at this juncture that the petitioner is no other than the brother-in-law of the third respondent and the third respondent is the sister's son of the petitioner. The father of the third respondent is the father-in-law of the petitioner. Thereby, all the three partners are very closely inter-related. The other three partners are also inter-related to the parties. After registration of this partnership deed (dated 13-3-1981), there is also a lease deed dated April 1, 1981 which was registered on May 4, 1981 under which the third respondent was authorised to act as Managing Partner and was directed to discharge the loans taken. There is also a contemporaneous letter given by the petitioner undertaking to give a letter in writing, consenting for the transfer of licence in favour of the third respondent Pursuant to that the third respondent took over the management of the partnership and the licence has been transferred in the name of the third respondent. Though initially he filed an application, on account of the mutual understanding between the parties, the renewal was being obtained in the name of the petitioner from the year 1981 and for the year 1983-1984, the third respondent also filed an application for renewal. But subsequently when differences arose, the third respondent filed an application for transfer of the licence in his name. The first respondent issued notice by Registered Post on Nov. 10, 1983 calling upon the petitioner to appear before the licensing authority and it was received on Nov. 15, 1983 but the petitioner did not appear before the authority. All the documents have been placed before the licensing authority and the first respondent has considered those documents and issued a fresh licence in the name of the third respondent for a period of one year from the date of issue, cancelling the B.Form licence granted earlier to the petitioner. He further contended, that in the writ petition the petitioner has stated that he did not receive any notice in the enquiry conducted by the first respondent but in fact he received the notice on Nov. 15, 1983 and he suppressed that fact. He further stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner has also suppressed the fact of subsequent registration of the partnership on Mar. 13, 1983 between the petitioner, third respondent and his father and the grant of registered lease on May 4, 1981 and also the letter undertaking to give his consent The petitioner is guilty of suppression of these material facts. He further contends that there is a right of appeal provided under S.7 of the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act 1955 and the alternate remedy was not availed of and therefore the writ petition is not maintainable on this ground also.

(3.) Sir. Rama Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the stand taken in the writ petition, further states that the order amounts to transfer of licence in favour of the third respondent. He also states that in view of the fact that the third respondent himself did not mention the facts relating to the registration of the partnership and the letter of undertaking, in the suit filed by him, in O.S. 310/83 on the file of the Court of the principal District Munsif, Chirala, it became not necessary to mention those details in the writ petition Therefore the petitioner is not guilty of suppression of the material facts. He pressed the legal point for consideration that since there is no written consent and under law, the renewal was deemed to have been made, the first respondent has no power to transfer the licence in the name of the third respondent or alternatively, the grant of fresh licence in the name of the third respondent.