AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Subramani, J.—In this Writ Petition, Petitioner seeks the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling for the records of the first Respondent, culminated in Proceedings R. Dis. No. 17430/97 dated 30.6.1997 and quash the said proceedings R. Dis. No. 17430/97 dated 30.6.1997 and direct the first Respondent to accept the Renewal Application dated 24.2.1997 submitted by Petitioner and renew the ''C'' Form Licence to the Shanmugha Theatre, Ramanathapuram, and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is said that Shanmugha Theatre in Ramanathapuram Town was built in 1962 by three brothers late S. Duraisamy, S. Jagan nathan and S. Nagalingam, sons of one Late Shanmugham Pillai. The theatre was constructed by raising money from joint family properties and business and by raising loans. First Respondent issued ''C'' Form Licence to the theatre in the name of Duraisami Pillai and brothers, as the theatre was run as joint family business. The elder brother S. Duraisamy died on 28.4.1967. The surviving brothers S. Jagannathan and S. Nagalingam entered into a family arrangement and ran the theatre. In 1971, the above arrangement was revised with the induction of the Petitioner Sethu Baskaran. In 1978, the above arrangement was terminated by a Dissolution Deed dated 31.8.1978, in view of a partition among the three brothers. Nagalingam and the Petitioner herein entered into an agreement on 1.9.1978 to run Shanmugha Theatre as joint family with each branch having equal rights. The joint family properties, according to Petitioner, were divided among the members of the family by partition deed dated 2.9.1978 wherein it was specifically mentioned that the Shanmugha Theatre is a joint family business belonging jointly to second Respondent and Petitioner and his brothers. It is further alleged by Petitioner that as senior member of the family, the second Respondent B. Nagalingam managed the theatre from 1978, and during his management for 15 years, second Respondent created liabilities to the extent of Rs. 12,07,000/-. It is also said that since statutory dues were not paid, the theatre was closed. The creditors also filed suits against the theatre, the second Respondent and the Petitioner. The elder members of the family and friends intervened and settled the dispute. Second Respondent and Petitioner came to an understanding in the running of the theatre, a family business. Incorporating the agreed terms and conditions, the family arrangement agreement dated 22.11.1993 was drawn and second Respondent and Petitioner have signed the document, accepting the terms and conditions. It is the case of the Petitioner that he assumed the management of the theatre and as stipulated in the agreement, Petitioner should run the theatre till 9.11.1998, paying Rs. 500/- every day to the second Respondent till 9.11.97 and thereafter at the rate of Rs. 750/- per day till 9.11.1998, and in case of any default, second Respondent can take over the management of the theatre. Besides the above condition, it is said, the Petitioner should also discharge the accrued liabilities of Rs. 12,07,000/- out of the income of the theatre, making a minimum payment of Rs. 500/- per day to the creditors. If the above conditions are fulfilled during the first four years, Petitioner will have the right to run the theatre for one more year, paying Rs. 750/- per day to the second Respondent. After the completion of the five years period on 9.11.1998, second Respondent will assume the management of the theatre on condition that Rs. 750/- per day is paid to the Petitioner and his brothers. Thus, an agreement was entered where under it was agreed to manage the theatre in turns. It was further provided in the agreement that the second Respondent will not interfere or cause disturbance or hindrance to the Petitioner in managing the theatre.
After the Petitioner assumed management of the theatre, the ''C'' Form Licence to run the theatre expired on 31.3.1994. Petitioner who is managing the theatre submitted renewal application signed only by him for renewal of the ''C'' Form Licence, and the District Collector, Ramanathapuram, accepting the same, renewed the ''C'' Form Licence of the theater from 1.4.1994 to 31.3.1997. In similar manner, Petitioner submitted application on 24.2.1997 signed only by him, for renewal of the ''C'' Form Licence. It is said, without any provocation, second Respondent submitted a petition dated 7.3.1997 to the District Collector, Ramanathapuram, stating that in the theatre he has equal right and hence renewal application signed only by the Petitioner is not valid and the licence should not be renewed, as dispute has arisen in the running of the theatre between himself and the Petitioner. Through his lawyer also, on 11.3.1997, second Respondent gave a petition to the District Collector, objecting to the renewal of ''C'' Form Licence to the theatre. In the second Petitioner, second Respondent has claimed that he has 50% share in the theatre, as if it is a business venture run by a partnership. Basing on the objection, the Collector heard the parties and passed the impugned order. First Respondent has ordered that the application for renewal is not maintainable under Rule 92(1), and accordingly rejected the same.
It is stated in the grounds of the Writ Petition that when renewal application was filed, the predecessor of the first Respondent has already held that it is family business as admitted by second Respondent and the Petitioner, and the same concludes the matter between the parties. It is further contended that Exs.P-3 to P-5 only show that it is joint family business, and to cannot be treated as a partnership business as found by the Collector. The Petitioner also says that even the initial permission issued in 1962 was in favour of Duraisami Pillai and his brother, which shows that all along it was a joint family business. He has also found fault with the interpretation by the Collector on the ground that he has not considered the documents in their proper perspective. According to the Petitioner, the finding of the Collector that the agreement Ex.P-5 dated 22.11.1993 is not admissible in evidence u/s 92(1) read with Rule 41(5), as it is not registered, is not correct, and the same is against law.
For the above reasons, he prays for the quashing of the impugned order, and also for a direction to the first Respondent to accept the renewal application dated 24.2.1997 submitted by Petitioner and renew the ''C'' Form Licence, as requested therein.
A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the second Respondent wherein it is said that the Shanmugha Theatre was all along considered as a partnership firm ever since the assessment year 1963-64, and this material fact has been suppressed by the Writ Petitioner in the affidavit. It is further said that since the original application is for renewal of an application already granted, the original grant also will have to be considered. The original licence is in the names of the Petitioner and second Respondent and, therefore, when an application is filed for renewal, that can also be only in the names of both of them. So, the application for renewal filed by the Petitioner excluding the name of the second Respondent, is not maintainable. The decided cases are also to the same effect. It is further stated that the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable when the Petitioner has an effective alternative remedy. Against the impugned order, a regular Appeal lies, and against Appellate Authority''s Order, a Revision also lies, as per the Statute. When there are such effective alternative remedies, the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable. It is further said that even assuming that the Petitioner is entitled to seek any relief as per agreement dated 22.11.1993, that also disentitles him to get a renewal, since he failed to pay the dues to the second Respondent as agreed. So, as per the provisions of the very same agreement, it is the second Respondent who is entitled to get the licence and run the theatre. It is further said that the earlier partnership deed of 1978 still exists, and the same has not been dissolved. Even now, before the Income tax authorities, they are assessed as partners. It is only an internal arrangement in the partnership, and therefore, the Order of the Collector does not call for any interference.
Heard learned Counsel on both sides.
I do not think the Petitioner is entitled to any relief in this Writ Petition, and I also find that the Petitioner has not come to Court with clean bands.
Learned Counsel for second Respondent took objection to the maintainability of the Writ Petition itself, when the Petitioner has effective alternative remedies by way of Appeal and Revision. Petitioner has no case that the statutory appeal and revision are not effective remedies. Under the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, Joint Commissioner of Land Administration is the Appellate Authority. When there is an effective alternative remedy, it is settled Law that Court will be slow in invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also seen that Rule 47-A of the Rules under the said Act provides for a revision against the order of the Appellate Authority. Since the Petitioner has not exhausted the effective alternative statutory remedies, that itself is sufficient to hold that the Writ Petition is not maintainable.
Learned Counsel on both sides argued the case on merits also.
According to the Petitioner, the parties are now governed by the agreement dated 22.11.1993. It is not disputed by either parties that such an agreement was executed as a compromise in a mediation convened by close relations and friends. As per the provisions of the said agreement, it is seen that the Petitioner was allowed to be in management of the theatre on condition that he should pay Rs. 500/- per day, to his uncle, and if there was default even for a week, the entire amount will have to be paid in a lump, and, if the default is for more than a month, the management of the theatre shall be taken over by his uncle, the second Respondent. Both parties have agreed that they will act in accordance with the terms and conditions of this agreement. The entire case is also based on this agreement though he says that in spite of this agreement, the theatre has to be run as a family business.
On 24.9.1996, a notice was issued by the second Respondent to the Petitioner informing him about his obligation to honour the agreement dated 22.11.1993 and also to pay the amount every day. In that notice, it was stated that from 25.7.1996, no amount has been paid. On the date of notice, two months have expired. It is the case of the second Respondent that after that date, no amount has been paid, and even if we accept the case of the Petitioner, this default disentitles the Petitioner to run the theatre and, therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief of renewal of licence.
I find force in this contention.
Learned Counsel for the second Respondent also brought to my notice a recent Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 1311, Home (Cinema - III) Department, dated 9.9.1996, issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu in which there is an Amendment regarding the renewal of licence. There, it is said that every application for renewal shall be made one month before the expiry of the existing licence and the same shall be accompanied by certain documents. A reading of the same makes it clear that if there are more persons than one who are asked to file application for renewal, and if the application is filed by only one of them, a written consent of the other persons also should be obtained. In this case, the original licence was in the name of Petitioner as well as second Respondent. Even though permission has been granted to the Petitioner to run the theatre for a period of five years, nowhere it is said that the licence should also be taken only in the name of the Petitioner. As between the licensees, there is an arrangement as to how they should manage the theatre. But the licence should always be in the name of both the persons. The agreement dated 22.11.1993 does not deal with the taking of the licence solely in the name of the Petitioner or solely in the name of the second Respondent. Naturally, as per the Rules, the licence can be only in the name of the two persons, though as between the licensees, there can be other arrangements.
Even though learned Counsel for second Respondent submitted that the earlier partnership still continue and the Collector has also entered a finding in his favour, I do not want to enter a definite finding since even otherwise, the Petitioner is not entitled to a relief.
Learned Counsel for second Respondent wanted a direction that he may be allowed to take a licence in his name. The very same disqualification which the Petitioner has, equally applies to second Respondent also. Unless both of them join and file an application, the Authorities are justified in not issuing a renewal.
For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. W.M.P.18427 of 1997 for direction is also dismissed consequently.