Objection raised by any one of the licence should not be brushed aside.

The petitioner A.V.M. Theatre, Andipatty, represented by its three licensees have filed this writ petition to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records relating to the order of the first respondent in his proceedings G.O. (2D) No. 154, dated 7. 1996 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary.

2. The necessary facts for the purpose of disposal of the writ petition could be gathered from the affidavit filed by one of the licensees, M. V. Gnanaguruswamy. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the first respondent, the Secretary to Government, Home Cinemas Department, Tamil Nadu Government, in his proceedings G.O. (2D) No. 154, dated 7. 1996 confirming the orders of the second and third respondents viz., the Joint Commissioner (Cinemas), Land Administration Department and the District Collector, Madurai rejecting to renew ‘C’ Form licence of the petitioner cinema theatre on the ground that the licensees have failed to prove the lawful possession of the premises and equipments of the theatre and that one of the licensees has not signed in the application for renewal of the licence and raised objection for the said licence. According to the petitioners, they have not violated the requirements of Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Cinema Regulation Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘the rules’) pertaining to lawful possession. Further, the fourth respondent, one of the original licensees colluded with the Secretary, Andipatti Nadar Uravinmurai Sangam viz., the agreement holder and instead of resolving the dispute before the appropriate Civil Forum, had converted the authority of the third respondent indirectly by interfering with the running of the cinema.

3. According to the petitioner, the lawful authority failed to consider the submissions made by the petitioner that they did not produce the original of ‘C’ Form licence and electrical certificate as they have been marked as exhibits before the Sub Court, Periakulam in O.S. No.530 of 1994 and the third respondent unjustifiably rejected the renewal of ‘C’ form licence beyond the expiry date. Further, the non-co-operation of one of the licensees among four of them while applying for the renewal of ‘C form licence cannot get away right of remaining three licensees to continue the running of the theatre. On these grounds, the petitioner requested this Court to allow this writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the respondents 1 to 3.

4. On behalf of the fourth respondent, a counter-affidavit has been filed denying all the allegations contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. In the said counter-affidavit, the fourth respondent stated that the ‘C form licence in respect of the petitioner- theatre stands in the name of four persons i.e., the petitioners and this respondent. The ‘C form licence renewed from time to time and the ‘C form licence expired on 18. 1995. Even before the application was filed, the fourth respondent sent a representation dated 26. 1995 requesting the third respondent not to renew the ‘C’ form licence. The third respondent sent a reply dated 17. 1995 calling upon the petitioner to comply with certain requirements to enable the third respondent to renew the ‘C’ form licence beyond 18. 1995. In the said letter, dated 17. 1995, the third respondent has clearly stated that all the persons in whose names the ‘C form licence stands, should sign and present the same. The third respondent has also asked for the production of the original ‘C form licence. The third respondent after going through the records, found that only three persons out of four persons in whose names the ‘C form licence stood have signed the application for renewal of ‘C form licence and that the original ‘C form licence has not been produced and therefore, rejected the said prayer. Further, from the order, it could be seen that in spite of opportunities being given to the petitioner to