Judgment :- 1. Heard Mr.N.Nithyanandam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Dig Vijaya Pandian, learned Addl.G.P., who took notice for the respondents 1 to 3. 2. The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to dispose of the revision petition dated 7.12.2011 filed by the petitioner, within a time frame as may be fixed by this Court and to consequently direct the third respondent to grant "E permit" in the name of the petitioner for the cinema theatre, namely Karpagam Theatre in Manaparai, pending disposal of the said revision petition on the file of the first respondent. 3. The shorn of facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petition, are as follows: (a) The petitioner is running a Cinema Theatre under the name and style of "Karpagam Theatre" in Manaparai, Trichy District and obtained "C" form licence for running the said theatre in his name from the third respondent-District Collector, under the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, on satisfying the requirements under the said Act/Rules thereunder. The said "C" form licence was issued in the petitioners individual name in 2003 by the third respondent-District Collector and no one objected to the same at any point of time. Since 2003, the said "C" form licence for the said theatre, is standing in the petitioners individual name and the same has been periodically renewed from time to time by the third respondent on satisfaction of necessary requirements without any demur. (b) The property comprised in S.No.717/3 in which the theatre is located, was originally owned and possessed by the petitioners mother, namely Smt.Alagammal, who purchased the said property out of her own money by a Registered Sale Deed, dated 16.6.1969. Since then, she was in possession and enjoyment of the said property absolutely. Thereafter, the petitioners mother executed a Settlement Deed dated 20.9.2002 in favour of the petitioner, conveying the said property absolutely, without any restrictive clauses regarding the ownership, possession and enjoyment of the said property. As such, the petitioner became the absolute owner in lawful possession and enjoyment of the said property by virtue of the said Settlement Deed. Thereafter, the petitioners mother executed a Settlement Deed dated 20.9.2002 in favour of the petitioner, conveying the said property absolutely, without any restrictive clauses regarding the ownership, possession and enjoyment of the said property. As such, the petitioner became the absolute owner in lawful possession and enjoyment of the said property by virtue of the said Settlement Deed. The third respondent-District Collector, based on the said Settlement Deed, and on satisfaction of the requirements under the relevant Act/Rules, issued "C" Form licence in the petitioners name (individual name), by order dated 7.8.2003 in Pa.Mu.D1/10369/03, and the same has also been renewed in the petitioners name from 2003 without any objection from anybody. (c) The said "C" form licence standing in the petitioners name, was periodically renewed without any complaint of whatsoever nature and it was valid till 19.1.2010. As a result, the petitioner applied for renewal of the said "C" form licence, on 18.12.2009, by producing all the Certificates as required under the provisions of the said Act and the Rules thereto, along with the necessary fees prescribed therefor. Pursuant to the same, the officials of the third respondent-District Collector inspected the said Theatre premises for the purpose of renewing the "C" form licence and the petitioner satisfied and furnished all the documents and Certificates to the third respondent as required under the provisions of the said Act/Rules for renewal of the licence. It is not the case of the third respondent that the petitioner did not satisfy the requirements under the said Act/Rules. (d) Inspite of production of all records in the petitioners name as required under the said Act/Rules, the third respondent-District Collector, based on certain alleged objections filed by one Tvl.V.Ramakrishnan (fifth respondent herein), that he was the Managing Partner of the said Theatre, along with two others (respondents 3 and 4 herein) in 2010, after a period of seven years, assumed many things as if the Theatre was run by Partnership Firm as per Rule 41(5) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules and by his order dated 18.1.2010, the third respondent rejected the renewal of the "C" form licence beyond the period of 19.1.2010 on the ground that a certified copy of the Registered Deed authorising the petitioner to act as a Managing Partner or Managing Trustee, was not produced and there are certain objections regarding the renewal of the "C" form licence. The third respondent passed the order dated 18.1.2010 without any materials available on record, without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and without holding any enquiry as regards the alleged claim of the said complainants in an arbitrary and whimsical manner. (e) The objectors (respondents 4 to 6) have no right whatsoever over the "C" form licence issued in the petitioners favour for the said Theatre and it was motivated, dead and unfounded claim. The third respondent failed to notice that in respect of the Theatre run by the petitioner in his individual name, Rule 41(5) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules has no application at all. The third respondent overlooked the fact that since 2003, till date, the "C" form licence was periodically renewed without any demur in the petitioners name and the Theatre was run by the petitioner individually and not by Partnership Firm. The claim of the said objectors (respondents 4 to 6) are uncrystallised and it has to be established before the competent Court of law. Unless the alleged rights of the objectors are proved before the competent Court, they have no right to object over the renewal of licence in the petitioners name. It is pertinent to note that since 2003, admittedly, the objectors (respondents 4 to 6) did not make any complaint over the grant of "C" form licence and renewal till 2010 in the petitioners name. This fact apparently discloses that the alleged claim of the respondents 4 to 6/objectors are unfounded and cannot be taken into consideration by the second and third respondents for renewal of licence in the petitioners name. However, the second and third respondents have overlooked and failed to appreciate all these aspects. (f) As a result, the third respondent passed an order dated 18.1.2010 rejecting the application for renewal filed by the petitioner, one day prior to expiry of licence, i.e. on 19.1.2010. Having no other efficacious alternative remedy, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition before the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.657 of 2010 challenging the order dated 18.1.2010 of the third respondent. The said W.P. was disposed of by order dated 9.4.2010, with the following observations: "4. Having no other efficacious alternative remedy, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition before the Madurai Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.657 of 2010 challenging the order dated 18.1.2010 of the third respondent. The said W.P. was disposed of by order dated 9.4.2010, with the following observations: "4. As the impugned order is an appealable one and the petitioner is also prepared to file an appeal I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition directing the petitioner to file an appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the first respondent namely, the Appellate Authority is directed to entertain the appeal without insisting the question of limitation and after giving opportunity to all the the parties concerned, dispose of the appeal at the earliest. The petitioner is also directed to apply for stay of the impugned order by filing necessary application along with the appeal and to enable the petitioner to get necessary order from the Appellate Authority, impugned order is stayed for a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. " (g) Pursuant to the said order of this Court in W.P.(MD).No.657 of 2010, dated 9.4.2010, the petitioner filed an Appeal dated 23.4.2010 along with a stay application before the second respondent in time, as directed by this Court, enclosing the copy of the order of this Court. The second respondent took the appeal dated 23.4.2010, but did not grant any stay of the order of the third respondent, pending the said appeal. As a result, the petitioner was forced to file another Writ Petition in W.P.No.9958 of 2010 before this Court, challenging the said order of the second respondent, dated 18.1.2010 and this Court, by interim order dated 12.5.2010 in M.P.No.1 of 201 in W.P.No.9958 of 2010 seeking for stay of the said order 18.1.2010, observed as follows: "The E permit granted to the petitioners Cinema Theatre was renewed from 01.05.2010 to 13.05.2010 and as against the refusal to renew the C form licence, the petitioner has preferred a statutory appeal before the first respondent and the said petition has been rejected by a non-speaking order. Pending appeal, if stay is not granted then the appeal itself is likely to be infructuous. 2. Pending appeal, if stay is not granted then the appeal itself is likely to be infructuous. 2. In that view of the matter, there will be a direction to the second respondent to keep the "E" permit issued in the favour of the petitioner valid till the disposal of the appeal by the first respondent." As such, the petitioner is running the theatre as on today. (h) The second respondent heard the appeal on various dates in detail, however, on erroneous appreciation of facts involved in the case and on law on the subject, by impugned proceedings No.L3/C.A.4/2010, dated 24.11.2011, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order of the third respondent by cryptic and nonspeaking order. No reasons have been stated in the said impugned proceedings for rejection of the appeal and the second respondent merely confirmed the order of the third respondent without application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and law. (i) Aggrieved by the impugned proceedings of the second respondent in Proceedings No.L3/C.A.4/2010, dated 24.11.2011, the petitioner filed a statutory Revision before the first respondent under Section 9-B of the said Act on 7.12.2011 in time together with necessary fee prescribed therefor, and along with the said Revision, the petitioner moved an application for stay, and though the said Revision was received and taken on file by the first respondent on 7.12.2011 itself, in spite of the petitioners earnest efforts in persuading the first respondent for grant of stay, since in view of the dismissal of the appeal by the second respondent, the third respondent would not grant temporary licence in Form "E", the first respondent did not pass any orders on the stay petition, which is causing much hardship to the petitioner, and as a result, the third respondent is not granting the temporary "E" licence to run the Theatre. (j) The petitioner is running the Theatre obtaining the "C" Form licence in his name since 2003 without any hindrance from any quarter. Even during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner had the benefit of interim stay by virtue of the order dated 12.5.2010 in W.P.No.9958 of 2010 of this Court. As on date, the theatre is being run by the petitioner and he has booked new release of time movie, which is running as on today. Even during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner had the benefit of interim stay by virtue of the order dated 12.5.2010 in W.P.No.9958 of 2010 of this Court. As on date, the theatre is being run by the petitioner and he has booked new release of time movie, which is running as on today. The "C" Form licence had been renewed from time to time without any demur till 19.1.2010. That being so, the third respondent, by virtue of the proceedings dated 24.11.2011 of the second respondent, which is impugned in the Revision pending before the first respondent, is refusing to renew the temporary licence. In such circumstances, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. There are several employees in the Theatre eking out their livelihood and the petitioner has also invested huge amounts for running the said Theatre. The petitioner is running the Theatre for the past seven years after his father in his individual capacity, who was holding the "C" Form licence earlier. Unless this Court grants direction to the third respondent to grant "E" permit in the name of the petitioner for the theatre, namely Karpagam Theatre, in Manaparai, pending disposal of the Revision Petition on the file of the first respondent, great prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. Hence, for these reasons, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition for the relief stated above. 4. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusing the facts culled out in the affidavit filed in support of this Writ Petition, it it appears that the petitioner has moved the revisional authority only on 7.12.2011. It is seen from the typed set of papers filed along with the Writ Petition that the said revision petition has not yet been taken on file and only an acknowledgement in the form of challan had been enclosed showing the payment of prescribed fee for entertaining the Revision by the Government. 5. It is seen from the typed set of papers filed along with the Writ Petition that the said revision petition has not yet been taken on file and only an acknowledgement in the form of challan had been enclosed showing the payment of prescribed fee for entertaining the Revision by the Government. 5. When the revision petition itself is not yet taken on file and it is in the nascent stage, it is premature for the petitioner to approach this Court seeking for a direction to dispose of the said revision petition and it is impossible for any revisional authority to consider the stay petition filed along with the revision petition, unless the revisional authority peruses the file and admits the case before-ever deciding the maintainability of the Revision petition or otherwise and granting stay, on merits and in accordance with law. 6. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to move the revisional authority to process the revision petition for taking the same on file, on merits and in accordance with law, and thereafter, the petitioner shall take all diligent steps to take up the stay petition pending disposal of the revision petition, by satisfying the revisional authority regarding the facts and merits of the case, for grant of stay, in the manner known to law. No costs. The Miscellaneous Petition is closed.