Judgment:
ORDER
Jayarama Chouta, J.
1. The petitioner A.V.M. Theatre, Andipatty, represented by its three licensees have filed this writ petition to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records relating to the order of the first respondent in his proceedings G.O. (2D) No. 154, dated 8.7.1996 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary.
2. The necessary facts for the purpose of disposal of the writ petition could be gathered from the affidavit filed by one of the licensees, M.V. Gnanaguruswamy. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the first respondent, the Secretary to Government, Home Cinemas Department, Tamil Nadu Government, in his proceedings G.O. (2D) No. 154, dated 8.7.1996 confirming the orders of the second and third respondents viz., the Joint Commissioner (Cinemas), Land Administration Department and the District Collector, Madurai rejecting to renew 'C Form licence of the petitioner cinema theatre on the ground that the licensees have failed to prove the lawful possession of the premises and equipments of the theatre and that one of the licensees has not signed in the application for renewal of the licence and raised objection for the said licence. According to the petitioners, they have not violated the requirements of Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Cinema Regulation Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules') pertaining to lawful possession. Further, the fourth respondent, one of the original licensees colluded with the Secretary, Andipatti Nadar Uravinmurai Sangam viz., the agreement holder and instead of resolving the dispute before the appropriate Civil'Forum, had converted the authority of the third respondent indirectly by interfering with the running of the cinema.
3. According to the petitioner, the lawful authority failed to consider the submissions made by the petitioner that they did not produce the original of 'C' Form licence and electrical certificate as they have been marked as exhibits before the Sub Court, Periakulam in O.S. No. 530 of 1994 and the third respondent unjustifiably rejected the renewal of 'C' form licence beyond the expiry date. Further, the non-co-operation of one of the licensees among four of them while applying for the renewal of 'C' form licence cannot get away right of remaining three licensees to continue the running of the theatre. On these grounds, the petitioner requested this Court to allow this writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the respondents 1 to 3.
4. On behalf of the fourth respondent, a counter-affidavit has been filed denying all the allegations contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. In the said counter-affidavit, the fourth respondent stated that the 'C form licence in respect of the petitioner-theatre stands in the name of four persons i.e., the petitioners and this respondent. The 'C' form licence renewed from time to time and the 'C' form licence expired on 11.8.1995. Even before the application was filed, the fourth respondent sent a representation dated 27.6.1995 requesting the third respondent not to renew the 'C' form licence. The third respondent sent a reply dated 19.7.1995 calling upon the petitioner to comply with certain requirements to enable the third respondent to renew the 'C' form licence beyond 11.8.1995. In the said letter, dated 19.7.1995, the third respondent has clearly stated that all the persons in whose names the 'C' form licence stands, should sign and present the same. The third respondent has also asked for the production of the original 'C form licence. The third respondent after going through the records, found that only three persons out of four persons in whose names the ''C form licence stood have signed the application for renewal of 'C form licence and that the original 'C form licence has not been produced and therefore, rejected the said prayer. Further, from the order, it could be seen that in spite of opportunities being given to the petitioner to produce the requirements asked for in the letter dated 19.7.1995, the petitioner has not chosen to produce the same. The third respondent, on the basis of the Ruje 13(1) rejected the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that they are not in lawful possession of the theatre and equipments. The authority has clearly come to the conclusion that in the absence of signing in the application for renewal of 'C form licence by all persons in whose names the 'C form licence stands, the question of renewing the licence does not arise. The 'C form licence carries onerous responsibilities and obligations exposing the licensees to the risk of prosecution and penalties for any violation, in addition to a mere right of running the theatre. The fourth respondent has further stated that the petitioner even7 without the licence had run the theatre on 31.8.1996 and 1.9.1996. According to the fourth respondent, even prior to the expiry of the licence period, dispute arose between the parties and that is why the fourth respondent did not sign the application for renewal of 'C' form licence. The additional factor under which the licensing authority rejected the renewal of 'C' form licence is the non-production of the original 'C' form licence. In the suit O.S. No. 309 of 1994 in which suit the petitioner is alleged to have filed the original 'C' form licence, the fourth respondent is not a party. Since all the four persons in whose names the 'C' form licence stands had not made the application for the renewal of 'C' form licence, it was rejected by the third respondent, which was confirmed in appeal by the second respondent and in revision by the first respondent and there is no justification to interfere with those orders by this Court. On these grounds, the fourth respondent has asked this Court to dismiss the writ petition as de-void of merits.
5. I heard learned senior Counsel Mr. K.M. Vijayan for Mr. C. Vijayakumar on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. N.C. Ramesh on behalf of the fourth respondent and Mr. K. Balasubramanian, Additional Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and perused the affidavit, counter-affidavit and relevant documents. Learned senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents 1 to 3 were not justified in refusing to renew the 'C' form licence on the ground that one of the licensees to the licence had not signed the application. He pointed out that when majority number of licensees have signed the application, the non-signing of one person i.e., the fourth respondent in the said application would not in any way have any effect for renewal of the licence. He further pointed out that if at all the fourth respondent has got any grievance, she can got to the civil court and ask for a share and to be away from running the theatre and cannot object for renewal of the licence. His other submission was that since the original 'C' form licence was produced in a suit filed by a third party for specific performance of an agreement, the applicants were not able to produce the said original licence before the licensing authority and on that account, the refusal to renew the 'C' form licence was illegal. Lastly, he submitted that the fourth respondent has conceded to the prayer of the third party who has filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement, and now she cannot oppose the renewal of 'C' form licence. On these grounds, he submitted that the orders passed by the respondents 1 to 3 refusing to renew 'C form licence are illegal and liable to be set aside by this Court. He invited my attention to a decision of this Court in Muthukumaran v. Commr. of L.R. 1984 W.L.R. 252.
6. On the other hand, Mr. N.C. Ramesh, learned advocate appearing for the fourth respondent, supporting the orders passed by the respondents 1 to 3 refusing to renew the 'C' form licence, submitted that the conceding in the suit O.S. No. 309 of 1994 filed by a third party for specific performance of an agreement by the fourth respondent will not preclude the fourth respondent from objecting to the grant of 'C' form licence. He pointed out that the suit is one for specific performance of an agreement which is yet to be tried. He further pointed out that the reasons given by the authorities for refusing to renew the 'C' form licence do not suffer from any illegality. He took me through the orders passed by the first respondent, the re visional authority and submitted that the decision relied upon by the learned senior Counsel has no relevance to the present case. He placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) V.G. Balasundaram v. V.B. Gopalakrishnan and Ors. : (1972)2MLJ566 , In this case, he drew my attention to the following portion:
Mr. R.M. Seshadri, learned Counsel for the appellant, contended before us that there are decisions of this Court holding that even a stranger under certain circumstances can apply for renewal of a ' licence granted in the name of another. For this purpose, he relied on the decision of Veeraswami, J. as he then was, in W.P. No. 187 of 1962, that of Srinivasan, J. in W.P. No. 294 of 1962 and that of Rajagopalan, J. in W.P. No. 342 of 1955. None of these decisions dealt with a case like the present one, namely, where the original licence was granted in the names of more than one person and the application for renewal was made by one of them in his own name and that being objected to by the other or others of the original licensees. Therefore, we are unable to derive any assistance in support of the contention of the appellant from the decisions referred to above. Mr. R.M. Seshadri then referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in N.S. Shethna and Ors. v. Vinubhai Harilal Panchal : [1967]1SCR174 and contended that the renewal of a licence is not a continuation of the original licence, but it is only a fresh licence and therefore, the application made by the appellant herein was competent. We are of the opinion that the decision does not support the case of the appellant herein. In that case the Supreme Court after elaborately referred to the rules in this behalf came to the conclusion that the rules themselves did not make any provision for power to renew and there was nothing to prevent the licensing authority imposing any fresh conditions at the time the renewal was granted conditions at the time the renewal was granted and therefore, the renewal of a licence was merely a grant of fresh licence. As far as the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules are concerned, there are specific provisions regarding renewal made in Rules 92 to 97. There is an elaborate procedure in this behalf and even these rules contemplate grant of a temporary permit during the interval between the application for renewal of the licence and the actual grant of the renewal and as a matter of fact, a perusal of these rules will give an indication that the renewal of a licence is merely a continuation of the original licence and not a fresh grant at all. Consequently, the decision of the Supreme Court relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellant does not support his case. We are clearly of the opinion that the very word 'renewal' is opposed to the person applying for renewal being different from the person in whose name the licence was originally issued. If, as in the present case, the licence was originally issued in the names of the appellant and the first respondent jointly, a renewal of that licence could be applied for and obtained only in the names of those two persons and on the application of those two persons. So long as only one of them applies for the renewal of the licence in his own name when the original licence stands in the names of both, such an application cannot be considered to be an application for renewal of the licence and on the basis of such an application, no renewal of licence can be granted.
(2) Ganapathy Swamy N. v. The District Collector, Periyar District (1995) 1 L.W. 622. In this case, he placed reliance on the following portion:
Considering the issues raised before me and the case of the petitioner in the light of the above pronouncements, I am of the view that the authorities below were right in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. As noticed by the Licensing Authorities, if the SC form licence, the renewal of which is sought for, stood registered in the names of Ganapathysamy and partners - (1) M. Ganapathysamy (2) R. Shanmugham (3) M. Kumarasamy (4) R. Perumalsamy, it is but natural and inevitable that all the four persons whose names also were found engrossed on the licence should apply for renewal since as held by the Division Bench the very word 'renewal' is opposed to the person applying for renewal being different from the person in whose name the licence was originally issued, and if, as in the present case, the licence was originally issued in the names of all the persons is representing the firm, the renewal of that licence could be applied for and get only in the names of all those persons on an application made by all of such persons. It is not the case of the learned senior Counsel for the petitioner before me that on any one occasion or point of time earlier the petitioner alone has made an application and obtained any such renewal. As a matter of fact even for the current renewal, when applied for it was not only the petitioner but the fourth respondent also joined together. But only the other partners refused to join and as the matter stand, even the fourth respondent has also fallen out from the petitioner and is not willing to go along with the petitioner.
He further pointed out that the abovesaid decision of the Single Judge is confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in an unreported judgment in W.A. No. 1471 of 1994 decided on 2.12.1994 between M. Ganapathy and the District Collector, Periyar District at Erode and six others. On these grounds, learned Counsel submitted that there is no merit in this writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed.
7. Now let me consider the rival submissions. I have been taken through the orders passed by the respondents 1 to 3. These orders, according to me, do not suffer from any illegality, they have given cogent and convincing reasons for rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for renewal of 'C' form licence. The first respondent, the Government of Tamil Nadu, after examining carefully the remarks and records of the Collector and the Joint Commissioner, has observed as follows:
The Government have examined carefully the remarks/records from the Collector/Joint Commissioner of Land Administration, and observed that according to Rule 13(1) of Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957, the licensed premises and equipments in the theatre, shall be in the lawful possession of the Licensee. If the license is held in the names of number of persons, all of them should apply jointly for the renewal and anyone of the co-licensee, fails to sign in the application for renewal it is invalid. In the instant case, except Tmt. Tamilselvi who is one of the licensee, all the other licensees have applied for renewal. Moreover, the licensee has not produced the original 'C' Form licence and the Electrical Certificate, since they have been produced before the Sub Court Periyakulam in view of case pending in O.S. No. 530 of 1994, the Collector, Madurai has therefore rejected to renew the 'C' form licence beyond 11.8.1995. The Joint Commissioner of Land Administration has also confirmed the orders of the Collector and has dismissed the appeal. The Collector and the Joint Commissioner of Land Administration have rightly treated the case and passed orders accordingly. The Government have therefore decided to reject the revision petition filed by the Licensee, A.V.M. Theatre, Andipatti Taluk, Madurai District.
The decision cited by the learned senior Counsel for the petitioner has no relevance to the present case. There, in the said case reported in Muthukumaran v. Commr. of LR. 1984 W.L.R. 252, learned single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition against which the present writ appeal under the reported case-law arose, held that taking in a partner amounts to transfer of the licence and such an act violates the conditions No. 12 in the 'C' form licence for the exhibition of films under the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, and that under Section 5(6) of the said Act, every licence issued under the Act shall be personal to the person to whom it is granted and by taking a partner, the licensee has transferred or assigned his licence to the partner concerned. But, the Division Bench took the view that there is absolutely no transfer or assignment of the licence in favour of the partner involved in the said case, and the partners who entered into the partnership are interested only in sharing the profits and it has nothing to do with the licence as such. The abovesaid case is altogether on a different proposition of law and it cannot be applied to the present case. The present case is fully covered by decisions reported in Balasundaram's case : (1972)2MLJ566 and Ganapathy Swamy's case (1995) 1 L.W. 622 cited by the learned advocate for the fourth respondent. When originally the licence was issued in the names of two persons jointly, the renewal of the Hence would be applied for and obtained only in the names of those persons on the application of those two persons. Whether the persons who applied for renewal of 'C' form licence are in majority has no relevance. All the persons in whose names the original licence stands should sign the application for the renewal of 'C' form licence. In this context, the contention of the petitioner for the renewal of 'C' form licence. In this context, the contention of the petitioner that three licenses out of four have signed the application for the renewal of the 'C' form licence and hence the authority should have ignored the objection of the fourth respondent has no relevance having regard to the fact that in a case of this nature, the character and nature of the licence involve the performance of duties and the obligations exposing the licensees to the risk of prosecution and penalties for violation of the conditions or any of the provisions governing the issue of licence and the objection of one of the licensees has to be given due weight and consideration and it cannot be lightly brushed aside. In this connection, it will be better to refer to Ganapathy Swamy's case reported in (1995) 1 L.W. 622, wherein this Court in paragraph 10 observed as follows:
At the instance of repetition it may be pointed out that in the latest decision of the Division Bench the licence stood only in the name of one person, unlike the present case. The plea based on the capacity of any one partner applying for renewal against the wishes of other partners and purporting to represent the other partners who do not wish to continue the business by taking shelter under the general law has no relevance and such claims can have no application also to claims arising under the special legislation in question which, as pointed out earlier, carries with the licence issued thereunder onerous responsibilities and Obligations exposing the licensee to the risk of prosecutions and penalties for any violation in addition to the mere right of running the theatre alone.
Hence, the contention of the learned senior Counsel has no force. Further, the contention made that the fourth respondent conceded the suit O.S. No. 309 of 1994 filed by the agreement-holder for specific performance of an agreement will not come to the rescue of the petitioner. That suit is still pending trial. Hence, for all the reasons stated above, I see no merits in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.