Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 632 (AP)

B. P. Nagi Reddy v. Government Of A. P.

2002-06-03

DALAVA SUBRAHMANYAM, S.R.NAYAK

body2002
S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THE unsuccessful writ petitioners have filed this writ appeal being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, dated 23-2-2001 made in Writ Petition No. 26358 of 2000. ( 2 ) THE appellants filed the above writ petition praying for the following relief:"petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not cancelling the b From licence in respect of Sri Srinivasa Talkies standing in the name of M/s. Laxmanna Sons and in seeking to renew the licence further for the year 2001 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to renew the licence without either reconstitution of the firm or the consent of the petitioners for renewal. "the writ petition was opposed by the 4th respondent contending that the petitioners have no locus standi to question the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in issuing B Form licence in his favour. It was also contended that under the partnership deed dated 16-8-1979 executed between the 4th respondent and the father of the petitioners, it is clearly stated that death or retirement of any partner will not dissolve the firm, but the firm may be continued in such altered constitution. The learned Judge, after referring to the above contentions raised by the 4th respondent and having opined that admittedly, the petitioners and the 4th respondent had equal rights in the theatre, which was constructed by the firm, thought it appropriate and just in the interests of the entire joint family to issue direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to grant B-Form licence in favour of the petitioners and the 4th respondent. Accordingly, the learned Judge, disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents 2 and 3 to grant B-Form licence in favour of the petitioners and the 4th respondent and permitting the 4th respondent to run the theatre. Hence, this writ appeal by the writ petitioners. Accordingly, the learned Judge, disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents 2 and 3 to grant B-Form licence in favour of the petitioners and the 4th respondent and permitting the 4th respondent to run the theatre. Hence, this writ appeal by the writ petitioners. ( 3 ) THE relevant background facts leading to the filing of the above writ petition be noted briefly and they are as follows: ( 4 ) FATHER of the petitioners and the 4th respondent had formed a partnership firm called M/s. B. N. Laxmanna sons. In the name of the said firm, B-Form licence was obtained for permanent cinema theatre under the name and style of sri Srinivasa Talkies by the firm. In the said firm, the father of the petitioners and the 4th respondent held 50% share each. The father of the petitioners died on 21-12-1999. During the life time of the father of the petitioners itself, dissolution of the firm was sought by instituting a suit in the civil Court and ultimately, by judgment and decree dated 27-6-2000 made in AS No. 1644 of 1988, the firm was dissolved. The said judgment and decree was produced before the licensing authority by the petitioners requesting the licensing authority to cancel the licence renewed in favour of Respondent No. 4 after the death of the father of the petitioners and not to renew the said licence in his favour in future. Since the licensing authority did not take any action on the said representation of the petitioners, the writ petition was filed. ( 5 ) IT is trite, that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Commr. of I. T. v. G. S. Mills, AIR 1966 SC 24 , that on the death of the father of the petitioners, the firm stood dissolved, and, therefore, continuing the licence or renewing the licence in the name of the firm would not arise. This aspect is lost sight of by the learned single Judge as we could see from the impugned order. This aspect is lost sight of by the learned single Judge as we could see from the impugned order. In addition, Rule 4 of A. P. Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970 envisages grant of licence only in the name of an individual or a company or a firm or association of individuals and not in the joint names of two individuals, and, therefore, the direction of the learned Judge to grant licence in the joint names of individuals cannot be sustained. Since the firm initially constituted by the father of the petitioners and the 4th respondent stood dissolved with the death of the father of the petitioners as well as by virtue of the decree dated 27-6-2000 passed in AS No. 1644 of 1988, the renewal of the licence by the licensing authority either in the name of the 4th respondent or in joint names of the 4th respondent and the petitioners would be ex facie irregular and in infraction of the mandatory provisions of Rule 4. ( 6 ) IN the result and for the foregoing reasons, was allow the writ appeal and set aside the order of the learned single Judge dated 23-2-2001 made in Writ Petition No. 26358 of 2000 and allow the writ petition. We direct the respondent licensing authority not to renew the licence in the name of die 4th respondent. We are told that by virtue of the direction issued by the teamed Judge in the order impugned in this writ appeal, the 4th respondent has been running the theatre in the name and style of Sri Srinivasa Talkies. Since, we have allowed the writ appeal and set aside the order of the learned single Judge, the right of the 4th respondent to run the theatre would come to an end. No costs.