HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.17997 of 2007 Dated: February 19, 2008 Between: M/s. Murthy Mahal Theatre, a Partnership Firm, at Ponnuru, rep. by its Managing Partner Katragadda Kishore Kumar, K. Siva Prasada Rao, aged 43 years, R/o. Nidubrolu, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District. … Petitioner And Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali, Guntur District, and others. … Respondents Order: In this writ petition, petitioners have questioned the order dated 18-06-2007, passed by the first respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, Tenali, Guntur District, in proceedings Rc.No.896/2003/G, by which the application of petitioners for renewal of B-Form licence granted for exhibition of films in the first petitioner-theatre, being run in the name of Murthy Mahal Theatre at Nidubrolu, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District, is rejected. 2. One Sri Alapati Venkata Naga Radha Krishna Murthy and the third respondent were the owners of a theatre situated at Nidubrolu, Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District, which was being run in the name of Murthy Mahal Theatre. The grant of licence for exhibition of films is governed by the provisions under A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Rules made thereunder. Originally, B-form licence to exhibit movies was obtained in the name of of Sri Alapati Venkata Naga Radha Krishna Murthy and was renewed from time to time upto 25-02-2006. The second petitioner herein, who claims to have purchased half share in the theatre from the original licencee, has applied for grant of renewal of B-Form licence. The licencing authority, by the impugned order, rejected the claim of the second petitioner by recording the following reasons: “ As per Rule 12 A (b) a letter of consent in writing of the original licensee whenever there is transfer of possession of site building and equipment to the effect that he has no objection to the licence being transferred in the name of the transferee. In this case, the original licensee has not attended for enquiry. On the other hand, the other partner and brother of the licensee has been objecting for renewal of licence. From the above, it seems that there is a civil dispute regarding the transfer of title or possession of the land, which need to be settled in a Civil Court. Further, Sri K. Kishore Kumar has not enclosed the certificates issued by the Engineer, R&B regarding longevity of the building and Inspector, Electricity and Fire along with his representation as required under Rule 12-A. From the above, it is clear that the applicant though got physical possession of the theatre, he has not got the licence transferred on his name as required by rule 12 to get the licence renewed on his name, on the other hand the licence of the theatre cannot be renewed on the original licensees’ name, i.e. A.V.N. Radha Krishna Murthy as he is no more in possession of the theatre. He has also not enclosed the necessary certificates. Therefore renewal of licence of Murthy Mahal, Ponnur rejected and the Tahsildar, Ponnur is directed to stop screening of movies in Murthy Mahal, Ponnur with immediate effect.” 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioners Sri P. Venugopal, learned Government Pleader for Home for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Durga Prasad for the third respondent. 4. It is the case of the petitioners that as much as the second petitioner had already purchased half share in the theatre by entering into agreement of sale from the original licencee and as he was put in possession, he is entitled for renewal of licence. It is also stated that when sale deed was not executed, petitioners have filed a suit for specific performance and third respondent also filed a suit in O.S.No.65 of 2003 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla seeking injunction orders restraining the authorities from granting B-Form licence on the application of the second petitioner. 5. It is contended by Sri P. Venugopal, learned counsel for petitioners, that as much as the second petitioner was already put in possession of the first petitioner-theatre, from the original licencee by entering into agreement of sale, second petitioner is entitled for renewal of licence. 6. On the other hand, it is submitted by learned Government Pleader for Home and Sri Durga Prasad, appearing for respondents, that the original B-Form licence was issued in the name of Sri Alapati Venkata Naga Radha Krishna Murthy and as he is no more, the question of grant of renewal in favour of the second petitioner does not arise. It is further submitted that as much as the licence was not transferred, the second petitioner cannot claim any renewal of B-Form licence. 7. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that, originally B-Form licence for exhibition of films was granted in favour of Sri Alapati Venkata Naga Radha Krishna Murthy under A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970. It is also not in dispute that original licencee died. Under Rule 12(A) b of A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970 if a there is a transfer of possession of site, building and equipment of a theatre to a third party, a letter of consent in writing of the original licencee is necessary, for transfer of licence. When the licence was not transferred in favour of the second petitioner during the lifetime of the original licencee, after the death of the original licencee, second petitioner cannot seek any renewal of licence. Though it is submitted that second petitioner is already in possession of the theatre by virtue of agreement of sale executed by the original licencee, but, however, it is stated that civil suit filed by the petitioner as well as the third respondent claiming title and possession are pending before the civil court. Though it is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that in view of delivery of possession of the first petitioner-theatre, to the second petitioner, pursuant to agreement of sale executed by the original licencee, he is entitled to seek fresh licence, but, however, the impugned order is one rejecting the renewal of licence, granted in favour of Sri Alapati Venkata Naga Radha Krishna Murthy, on the application of the second petitioner. The reasons recorded by the licencing authority in the impugned order are valid and in accordance with A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970. In absence of any transfer of licence during the lifetime of the original licencee, based on an agreement of sale from the original licencee, it is not open for the second petitioner to seek renewal of licence. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 18-06- 2007 passed by the first respondent rejecting the claim of the second petitioner for renewal of licence, which warrants interference of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that if the second petitioner is otherwise entitled to seek fresh licence as per the Rules, this order will not preclude him from filing a fresh application. No order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY. February 19, 2008 MRR