T.R. Rajakumari vs The Commissioner of Police and Another

S. Nainar Sundaram, J.—Though submissions were made in the interim applications, practically they covered the controversy in the main

writ petition which comes up for admission after notices of motion. Hence both Mr. V.P. Raman, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.C.

Raghavachari, learned Counsel for the second respondent, wanted to have their submissions treated as submissions in the main writ petition itself.

The prayer in the writ petition runs in the following terms:

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner herein prays that this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of

Mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction forbearing the first respondent herein from granting any renewal to the 2nd respondent of

licence to locate and run the cinema theatre in the petitioner''s premises Rajakumari Theatre at Thiagaraya Road, Madras-17....

The petitioner claims that she is the owner of the theatre. The second respondent is stated to be the mortgagee in possession. There is a thick

controversy as to whether the second respondent is in lawful possession of the theatre in question. The licensee of the theatre is none else than the

husband of the second respondent. I do not propose to express any opinion and I do not think it is proper also for the Court to express any

opinion on the question of lawful possession, in writ jurisdiction. In this connection, I must advert to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in

M.C. Chockalingam and Others Vs. V. Manickavasagam and Others, which has not approved the High Court under Article 228 of the

Constitution taking upon itself the investigation as to the legality of possession of the site in the hands of the applicant for renewal of licence. Before

the Supreme Court, the following observations of the Bench pf this Court in C. Bhavarlal Managing Proprietor, Sri Meliata Talkies Vs. Mallay

Gounder, were referred to:

The jurisdiction to grant or refuse renewal of a licence is entrusted to the licensing authority which is not the Court. The nature of the jurisdiction so

entrusted is clearly for the licensing authority to see whether on the documentary evidence produced, he is satisfied that the applicant was in lawful

possession of the site. In exercise of his jurisdiction the licensing authority looks into the matter prima facie and for the purpose of his being satisfied

whether be, the applicant is in lawful possession. He is not called upon to decide the issue finally between the parties as in a suit. This aspect of the

matter should be kept in view when it comes up in the form of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In exercise of this power this

Court will not in that background, take upon itself to investigate as to the legality of possession of the site in the hands of the applicant. All that can

be looked into by this Court, as we are inclined to think, is whether the licensing authority has applied his mind to the documentary evidence

produced before him and weighed it with a view to satisfy himself as to the legality. Short of caprice, arbitrariness or mala fides the licensing

authority would more than have done his duty if he had gone through that process. If this Court is satisfied about it, it will not further go into the

rival position in regard to the legality of possession of the site which will not necessarily be the final pronouncement between the parties but leave

the issue to be tried as between them in a suit in the appropriate civil Court.

Furthermore, I am told that the licensee, the husband of the second respondent, has applied for renewal on 20.9.1985 and the first respondent

is already seized of the matter. Mr. V.P. Raman, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that his client has been objecting to the grant of

the renewal even anterior to the filing of the application for renewal as stated above. Whatever that be, since the first respondent is now seized of

the matter, the question of legality of possession can as well be gone into and adjudicated upon by him under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu

Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 and the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957. The first respondent is directed to proceed, deal with and

dispose of the matter in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and the said Rules. This writ petition is ordered in the above terms. No

costs.