T. Ramalingam vs The District Collector (Licencing Authority)

K. Chandru, J.—The petitioner claims to have purchased the Saravana Theatre, situated at Seruvangi Village, Gudiyattam Taluk, Vellore

District. The said purchase is through Court auction and when the petitioner claimed that there must be a transfer of the name of the C form licence

and made a representation to the District Collector, Vellore District. The said request was rejected by stating that the petitioner has purchased the

auction property, namely, Saravana Theatre, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957, did not provide any name

change in the existence C form licence. Being a owner of the theatre, the petitioner should make an appropriate application in terms of the Tamil

Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957, more particularly Section 120 of the said Rules. The petitioner was also informed that since the erstwhile

owner, who had having C form licence, had mortgaged the property through Financier and also obtained a loan, steps have been taken to cancel

the C form licence standing in the name of the theatre. Challenging the said communication dated 24.7.2007, the present writ petition came to be

filed.

In the present writ petition, notice of motion was ordered on 25.3.2009. Subsequently, the writ petition was admitted on 24.11.2010. Pending

the writ petition, this Court did not grant any interim direction for the issuance of C form licence, though a miscellaneous petition in M.P.No.1 of

2009 in W.P.No.4451 of 2009 had been filed.

On notice from this Court, the District Collector, namely, the licencing authority has filed a counter affidavit dated 16.11.2010. In the counter

affidavit, there was no dispute regarding the purchase of the property by the petitioner along with its fixtures on 14.10.2008. It is also not in dispute

that the petitioner was a successful bidder and get the property through the Court auction. However, it is stated that for renewing the existing C

form licence, the purchaser of the property has to submit an application in the proper format along with the required enclosures. The said

enclosures include, fitness certificate for the structural soundness from the Public Works Department, no due certificate from the Film Division,

Electrical Certificate from the Electrical Inspector. Since the petitioner had not made any such application in accordance with law, his request was

rejected.

Mr. R. Karthikeyan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in all most circumstances, there is already existence of the C

form licence available, it only requires name change and therefore, the respondent was wrong in denying the name change in the C form licence.

As pointed out in the counter affidavit, since the erstwhile C form licence is also sought to be cancelled as per the terms and conditions of the

Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957, this Court is not inclined to give a direction as sought for by the petitioner in the present writ

petition. Further, it must be noted that the petitioner is only a purchaser of the property and not business. In such circumstances, being a Court

auction purchaser and the owner of the property, he should make an application seeking C form licence. Merely because an application seeking C

form licence involves production of the required enclosures, the petitioner cannot be permitted to bypass this procedure by filing a writ petition.

The requirement of the documents for the issuance of the C form licence is based upon the public interest and also the District Collector must be

satisfied with the running of the theatre is fully in consistence with the Rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957.

Under such circumstances, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the District Collector. Hence, the writ petition

stands dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.