( 1 ) THIS petition regarding cinema licence is essentially a private dispute amongst partners and the public authority like the licensing authority has failed to appreciate the same and has taken too narrow and technical view of the matter.

( 2 ) THERE was all old partnership firm known as M/s. Chandrabhanu Exhibitors formed in 1975 and it constructed Chandrabhanu Theatre at village Hansol near Ahmedabad. A cinema licence under Rule 103 of the Bombay Cinema Rules was issued in the name of Bhanuprasad Prahladbhai Patel (respondent No. 3 herein) one of the partners of the old firm. He is also a partner of the new firm but he is contesting the present petition. The old firm was dissolved by a deed dated 24 April 1983 which is produced at Annexure B in this petition. On the same day i. e. 24th April 1983 a new partnership firm was formed by the partners of deed (Annexure A to the petition) wherein the present 10 petitioners were joined as partners. Bhanuprasad and his two brothers are also other partners. These three brothers are called parties of the First Part and they have 10% share each in the profit and loss of the firm. The parties of the Second Part are the petitioners and their share in the profit and loss of the firm is 70%. As per paragraph 5 of the partnership deed the entire management of the business of the film of M/s. Chandrabhanu Exhibitors is vested in the parties of the Second Part i. e. the petitioners and the parties of the First Part (respondent No. 3 and his brothers) have not to obstruct or interfere with the management by the petitioners. The petitioners as per Clause 4 of the partnership deed have taken overall the past liabilities and in consideration thereof the petitioners are made 70% owners of the moveable and immoveable properties of the firm and the other three partners are together owners of the 30

( 3 ) AFTER the formation of the new partnership firm the 10 partners (the present petitioners) authorised one of 3 them the petitioner No. 1 to apply and obtain a new cinema licence on behalf of the firm. Respondent No. 3 and his brothers were not party to that authorisation. In fact they seem to be contesting the right claimed by the petitioners for obtaining a new cinema licence. The application to the Police Commissioner dated 26th May 1983 is produced at Annexure F. In that application it is shown that the interest of the old partners (respondent No. 3 and his two brothers) in the business of the new firm was only 30% while that of the petitioners is 70%. It is also pointed out that the partners of the First part had invested a sum of Rs. 51 0 only as against the huge investment of about Rs. 25 lakhs by the present petitioners and because of such huge investment and consideration the petitioners were given the entire management of the theatre. In para 3 of the application it is mentioned that petitioner No. 1 Chinubhai Ambalal Choksi was authorised to approach the Licensing authority with a view to grant a new cinema licence in his name on behalf of the new firm and it was therefore prayed that new cinema licence under Rules 103 and 110 in the name of Shri Chinubhai Ambalal Choksi as nominee of the partners be issued and the old one be cancelled.

( 4 ) THE Police Commissioner by his order dated 21st June 1983 (Annexure C to the petition) rejected that application on the ground that the cinema licence already stood in the name of Bhanuprasad Prahladbhai Patel (respondent No. 3) and if that licensee wants any change to be made or wants new licence to be issued it is for him to apply for the same and if he wanted to have his licence cancelled then also it is for him to give that intimation and only thereafter proceeding can be taken for issuance of a fresh cinema licence. Being aggrieved thereby the petitioner No. 1 preferred an appeal under Section 8 of the Bombay Cinemas (Regulation) Act 1953 on 20th July 1983. Copy of that appeal is at Annexure C to the petition. The Appellate Authori