An administrative authority must provide a fair opportunity of hearing to all affected parties before passing final orders on an appeal concerning the grant of statutory licenses.

The Court made the following common order:

Since the issued involved in both the writ petitions are one and the same, they are heard and disposed of by way of common order.

2. Heard Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Ponnada Sree Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner(s), learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri P.Vivek, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent.

3. The instant writ petitions are filed challenging the proceedings dated 03.06.2022 of the 1st respondent, in entertaining the appeal filed by the 5th respondent herein and passing the interim orders without issuing notice to the petitioners herein.

4. The brief facts of the case are: the 3rd petitioner is the mother of the petitioners 2 and 4 and the unofficial respondent herein. The father of the petitioners 2, 4 and the unofficial respondent herein was the managing partner of the 1st petitioner firm. Licenses were granted for the exhibition of films in two cinema theatres, namely Pallavi Cinema and Keerthana Cinema. The said licenses are the subject matter of the instant dispute(s). After the demise of Sri Nalluri Anjaiah Naidu, the father of the petitioner Nos.2, 4 and the unofficial respondent herein, the daughter of the said Nalluri Anjaiah Naidu, the respondent No.5 herein, claiming the cinema theatres as joint family property, filed a suit for partition showing the subject cinema theatres as one of the items of the plaint schedule property. Apart from filing the suit for partition, she also approached the authorities seeking transfer/issuance of B-form licenses in favour of all the legal heirs of late Nalluri Anjaiah Naidu. Per contra, the petitioners claim the said property as belonging to the partnership firm, the 1st petitioner herein.

5. The 2nd respondent issued proceedings transferring the B-form licenses in favour of the partnership firm, the 1st petitioner herein. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the 5th respondent herein filed an appeal before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent, vide proceedings dated 03.06.2022, suspended the proceedings of the 2nd respondent pending disposal of the appeal, the petitioners were informed of the said order vide proceedings dated 02.07.2022. Being aggrieved by the said order of the 1st respondent, the instant writ petition is filed.

6. It is contended by Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner(s) inter-alia that the 1st respondent passed the impugned proceedings without issuing notice to the petitioners. It is further argued that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned proceedings.

7. On the other hand Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent that the 2nd respondent passed the orders transferring the B-form licenses in favour of the 1st petitioner without taking into consideration the reports of the MRO and RDO, who had reported that the property disputes are going on in between the petitioners and the 5th respondent.

8. Considered the submissions. The issue as to the entitlement of a grant of statutory license is pending before the 1st respondent. Having regard to the contentions advanced, without going into the merits of the issue involved in the case, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions by directing the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders on the appeal filed by unofficial respondent No.5 within a period