S. Vaidyanathan, J.

The Writ Petition in W.P.No.27416 of 2012 has been filed, praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, to direct the District Collector, Krishnagiri to initiate appropriate action based on the representation dated 1.9.2012.

2. The Writ Petition in W.P.No.30443 of 2012 has been filed, praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamus, to direct the first respondent to grant renewal of C-Form license for the Theater, Srinivasa theatre, Hosur to the petitioner.

3. Since the subject matter of both the writ petitions is common, these writ petitions are taken up together for final disposal. It is appropriate to refer the brief facts of the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.30443 of 2012 at first instance, which are as follows:

4. According to the petitioner, C-Form License to run M/s. Srinivasa Theater originally stood in the name of his father, Late Krishnappa and after his demise in the year 1983, himself and his brothers, P.K. Srinivasan, P.K. Amarjothi and P.K. Devendran along with two sisters, Smt. Girija @ Padmavathi and Smt. Sampath Lakshmi had given no objection for transfer of the C-Form license in the name of the second respondent, who is none other than their mother, Mrs. Rajamma since she is the elder member of the family and accordingly, the license was transferred in her name in the year 1985. It is stated that though the license was transferred in the name of the second respondent, the petitioner and his elder brother, P.K. Srinivasan were managing the theater on behalf of the Hindu Undivided Family and after demise of his brother P.K. Srinivasan, the petitioner has been managing the theatre from 2002 onwards by renewing C Form license periodically by signing and submitting necessary application before the first respondent. While so, when the petitioner applied for renewal of C Form license of the theatre in August, 2012 and pending inspection report called for from the Sub-Collector, Hosur, the petitioner applied for E Form temporary license, which was also granted on 31.8.2012 for a period of one month from 1.9.2012 which was again extended till 1.10.2012. According to the petitioner, though he applied for E form license for the period 1.11.2012 for one month pending issue of C Form license, the first respondent has not issued the same for the untenable objections raised by the second respondent. It is also stated that at present the theatre is under his management as Kartha of the joint family and the second respondent cannot raise any valid objections for the issue of C form licence or E form license as per the judgment of this Court reported in 1999(1) MLJ 526 and 1999 (93) MLJ 688. Therefore, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition.

5. According to the petitioner in W.P.No. 27416 of 2012, who is the second respondent in W.P.No.30443 of 2012, E-form license in respect of the theatre stands in her name and she has been running the theatre all along without any interference. However, since disputes arose among the members of the family, her daughters have filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.86 of 2011 before the District Judge at Krishnagiri and her sons have filed a suit for injunction in O.S.No.35 of 2012 before the Sub Judge at Krishnagiri. In such circumstances, the petitioner addressed a letter to the District Collector, requesting him not to renew the license which was due to expire on 30.8.2012 and she also gave an application to that effect to the District Collector in person. She expressed her opinion before the Collector that she has no interest to run the theater on account of disputes among her children. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite her request, the District Collector issued e-form license to the respondents 2 and 3 in her name. She claimed that her signature was forged by the respondents 2 and 3. It is contrary to Rule 92 of Tamil Nadu Cinema Regulation Rules 1957. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the writ petition.

6. A counter