( 1 ) THE two petitioners assail the order of first respondent, dated 19. 5. 2001, as illegal, void and opposed to principles of natural justice and seek to set aside the said order. The first respondent issued impugned order transferring b Form licence to the third respondent in respect of sri Rama Krishna Theatre, Machilipatnam. Be it noted, the first respondent exercised the powers under the provisions of a. P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 (hereafter called, the Act) and A. P. Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970 (hereafter called, the Rules ).

( 2 ) THE fact of the matter, in brief, is as follows. A cinema theatre known as M/s. Sagar Talkies was constructed by sava Srinivasa Sastry and Sava Nachara vara Prasad sometime prior to 1974. In that year, the two owners of the cinema theatre sold the theatre to fifteen persons under registered sale deed, dated 26. 5. 1974. Those persons constituted themselves into a partnership firm and were running the theatre in the name and style of Rama krishna Talkies. The firm was again reconstituted on 14. 7. 1990. The cinema theatre obtained b form licence under the Act and the Rules in the name of one Goriparthi narasimha Raju, who is the uncle of the third respondent, who was at that time the Managing partner, with the consent of all other partners. It is alleged that Nalli Sitaramachandra Rao and Nalli sundaramma, two of the partners, issued a notice of dissolution allegedly dissolving the firm with effect from 3. 11. 2000. It is therefore alleged that from 4. 11. 2000, the third respondent is running cinema theatre without any valid licence. In the meanwhile, on 7. 11. 2000, the two partners, who allegedly gave notice of dissolution as referred to hereinabove, sold their shares in the assets and liabilities to the petitioners duly intimating the same to the first respondent and further requesting not to renew or transfer the licence. It is also alleged that Naga Raju, the Managing partner, addressed a letter to the first respondent to cancel b Form licence on the ground that there are disputes among the partners.

( 3 ) THE third respondent herein along with three erstwhile partners and two strangers, allegedly constituted the fourth respondent firm, came to be in unauthorized occupation of the cinema theatre and business of the original firm - the second respondent herein. The petitioners, who are father and son, sent telegram and the detailed representations to the first respondent informing that the fourth respondent is running the theatre illegally without any valid licence. The first respondent issued notice to all the partners and hearing was fixed on different dates. Apprehending that the new firm would continue to screen the films without any objection from the first respondent, the petitioners filed W. P. No. 8370 of 2001 directing the first respondent to dispose of the objections filed by the petitioners whereafter the impugned order was passed. The petitioners contend that the second respondent firm having been dissolved with effect from 3. 11. 2000, the Managing partner of the said firm could not have validly transferred the b Form licence in favour of fourth respondent. For that reason the impugned order transferring the licence by the erstwhile managing partner in favour of the third respondent is illegal and arbitrary.

( 4 ) THE first respondent filed a counter- affidavit opposing the writ petition. It is stated that the b Form licence issued to the second respondent in the name of goriparthi Naga Raju as a Managing partner was renewed up to 12. 10. 2003. It is further stated as follows. Narasimha Raju sent a representation informing that the screening of the films in their theatre is stopped with effect from 1. 11. 2000 in view of the disputes among the partners and that further intimation will be given as and when it is decided to resume the screening. The third respondent made a representation on 9. 11. 2000 informing that they are operating the theatre from 9.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document