ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent dated 10.3.1995 and to quash the same. 2. According to the petitioner, he is the proprietor and licensee of M/s.Anjaneya Rice Mill in Karimangalam Post, Palacode Taluk, Dharmapuri District. The Rice Mill is situated in an extent of 31 cents in Survey No.338/2 in Karimangalam village. Originally, the mill belonged to one Veerappa Chettiar. The rice milling Licence was granted in his favour as per the licence No.117/66. The said Veerappa Chettiar died on 13.9.1972 and as he did not have any children, his wife was the only heir. After the death of Veerappa Chettiar, the rice milling licence was transferred in the name of his wife Lakshmi Ammal in 1973. The petitioner is her brother’s son and he was brought up from his early days by Veerappa Chettiar and Lakshmi Ammal as their foster son. After the death of Veerappa Chettiar, Lakshmi Ammal became entitled to all the properties. During her lifetime Lakshmi Ammal executed a registered will dated 9.5.1984 bequeathing all her properties in favour of the petitioner. Lakshmi Ammal passed away on 26.12.1990. However, during her life time itself, in 1987 she had made all necessary arrangements for transferring the rice milling licence in the name of the petitioner. By his proceedings dated 10.3.1988, the second respondent cancelled the rice milling licence in the name of Lakshmi Ammal and issued a fresh licence in the name of the petitioner. Thus the rice milling licence originally granted in the name of Veerappa Chettiar in the year 1966 was transferred in the name of his wife in the year 1972 and then further transferred in the name of the petitioner in the year 1988 at the instance of Lakshmi Ammal herself. Subsequent to the death of Lakshmi Ammal, the husband of the third respondent has filed a suit in O.S. No.92 of 1991 on the file of Sub Court, Dharmapuri for partition of the suit properties into two shares and for allotment of one share to him. The land and building relating to the rice mill is shown as item No.1 and the petitioner is shown as the first defendant in the suit. The land and building relating to the rice mill is shown as item No.1 and the petitioner is shown as the first defendant in the suit. The claim of the third respondent’s husband is that he and the second defendant in the suit are entitled to share the suit properties equally and that the writ petitioner does not have any manner or right or title over the suit properties. The husband of the third respondent died on 16.9.1991 and his wife. the third respondent, his five daughters, one son and mother are further prosecuting the suit and the petitioner herein is contesting the said suit. 3. While so, the licence became due for renewal on 31.3.1994 and the third respondent raised objections before the second respondent as against the renewal in the name of the petitioner on the ground of pendency of the suit. The petitioner explained to the second respondent that the pendency of the suit cannot stand in the way of renewal of the licence because neither the Government nor the second respondent is a party to the same. There was no interim order in the said suit prohibiting the renewal of the licence. The third respondent has not claimed any interim relief in the said suit. However, without considering the submissions, the second respondent by order dated 10.3.1991 declined to renew the licence beyond 31.3.1994 on the only ground that it may not be proper to renew the licence during the pendency of the said suit. The petitioner thereupon filed an appeal before the first respondent and the said appeal was also dismissed on 29.9.1996. The third respondent appears to have filed W.P. No.1094 of 1996 for direction to initiate action against the writ petitioner, as if he was carrying on the rice milling operations after the expiry of the period of licence. In this writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the order passed by the first and second respondents refusing to renew the licence. 4. I have also gone through the counter affidavit filed by the Government. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have merely referred to the pendency of the Civil Suit in O.S. No.92 of 1991 and that therefore, the authorities have rightly rejected the claim of renewal by the petitioner. 5. 4. I have also gone through the counter affidavit filed by the Government. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have merely referred to the pendency of the Civil Suit in O.S. No.92 of 1991 and that therefore, the authorities have rightly rejected the claim of renewal by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the facts stated in the writ petition would disclose that in the year 1988 itself the licence has been transferred in the name of the petitioner at the instance of Lakshmi Ammal herself. It is not as if the petitioner was seeking fresh licence in his favour or transfer of licence in his name from the name of some other person. All that the petitioner has prayed is only for the renewal of the licence and the authorities have only to see whether the contesting claimant has secured any decree in his favour by a competent Civil Court. The mere pendency of the civil suit cannot itself disentitle the existing licensee to receive the renewal of his licence. Learned counsel also refers to Sec.3(g) of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 which defines the owner of the rice mill. Therefore, in the absence of any specific directions or orders by the Civil Court, the petitioner being admittedly in possession of the rice mill and also being the existing licence holder, is entitled to have the licence renewed. 6. Learned Government Pleader contends that having regard to the dispute between the parties before the Civil Court and objections from the third respondent, the respondents 1 and 2 have no other alternative except to decline the renewal of the licence. 7. I have considered the submissions of both sides. 8. The fact that the licence originally granted in the name of Veerappa Chettiar in 1966 was subsequently transferred in the name of his wife Lakshmi Ammal in the year 1972 and then further transferred in the name of the petitioner in the year 1988 is not disputed before me. It is asserted by the petitioner that the transfer of the licence in his favour was at the instance of Lakshmi Ammal herself. Therefore, the lawful possession of the mill and the licence by the petitioner as on date cannot be disputed. It is asserted by the petitioner that the transfer of the licence in his favour was at the instance of Lakshmi Ammal herself. Therefore, the lawful possession of the mill and the licence by the petitioner as on date cannot be disputed. In fact, in O.S. No.92 of 1991 itself, the prayer is for directing division of suit properties and to direct the delivery of possession of such separate share to the plaintiffs. In the plaint also it is stated that after the demise of Lakshmi Ammal, the first defendant was not entitled to manage the suit properties. The said contention can only mean that as on date, the petitioner was admittedly, in management of the Mill. 9. The contesting claimant has claimed rights over the property by virtue of the registered Will dated 27.8.1990 said to have been executed in favour of one Natarajan and the first plaintiff. While the petitioner claims to be the foster son of Veerappa Chettiar and Lakshmi Ammal and also claims right under alleged registered Will dated 9.5.1984, the plaintiff in O.S. No.92 of 1991 claims right under alleged registered will dated 27.9.1990. The question as to who is the lawful heir of Lakshmi Ammal is, no doubt, a matter to be decided by the Civil Court. But it does not mean that the rice mill should continue to lie idle till then and licence also not to be renewed. The authorities have to see as to who is in lawful possession. As already stated, the petitioner is the existing licence holder and there is no interim order by the Civil Court in the suit filed as against the petitioner. 10. Sec.3(g) of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958 defines owner in relation to the rice mill as the person who, or the authority which, has the ultimate control over the affairs of the rice mill, and where the said affairs are entrusted to a manager, managing director or managing agent, such manager, managing director or managing agent shall be deemed to be the owner of the rice mill. 11. 11. Sec.6 of the said Act deals with the grant of licence which runs as hereunder: Any owner of the existing rice mill or of a rice mill in respect of which may make an application to the licensing officer for the grant of a licence for carrying on rice-milling operation in that rice mill. Therefore, as on date in the absence of any decree or order by the Civil Court, the writ petitioner being in management of the rice mill and also the existing licence holder, he is entitled to receive the order of renewal of the licence. Therefore, I am inclined to hold that the mere pendency of the civil suit questioning the right of the writ petitioner, cannot result in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for renewal of the licence. 12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the request of the petitioner for the renewal ignoring the objections from the respondents. No costs.