IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22898 of 2002 Between: R.R.K. Ranga Rao … Petitioner AND The Joint Collector & Licensing Authority, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District, & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri O. Manohar Reddy for Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri K. Somakonda Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22898 of 2002 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash orders dated 21.07.2001 and 12.12.2001 passed by respondent No.1 Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy representing Sri Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Somakonda Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Serious disputes over a cinema theatre by name Sri Venugopala Talkies (for short, ‘the theatre’) persist between the petitioner and respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has been in the management of the theatre and license is being renewed from time to time in his name. The petitioner approached respondent No.1 with a representation filed on 24.11.2000, wherein he claimed that he is the absolute owner of the theatre, as the right, title and interest therein passed on to him from his father late Raja Rao Venkataraya Krishna Ranga Rao. He further represented that his father got the right and title over the said theatre under registered sale deed dated 21.04.1957 executed by Sri G.K.Manga Raju. Respondent No.1 gave notice to respondent No.2 and after hearing both sides passed order dated 21.07.2001, wherein he has observed that as per document No.908 of 1957 dated 21.04.1957 Sri R.V.K. Ranga Rao, father of the petitioner, purchased the theatre from Sri G.K. Manga Raju of Visakhapatnam, that during the year 1983, the petitioner entered into a partnership agreement with respondent No.2 by agreeing to retain 15% share with him subject to respondent No.2 clearing all the outstanding dues of the petitioner to obtain loans for revival of the firm and that the said partnership deed was continued for a further period of 5 years through another deed dated 23.03.1988. He further observed that another deed was entered into on 01.04.1992 and that finally the petitioner retired from the partnership through retirement notice dated 22.03.1995 and that respondent No.2, being the managing partner of the theatre, changed the name of the theatre as Balaji Theatre. On the above premises, respondent No.1 observed as under: “On examining the arguments and the records put forth before me, the issue relates to civil nature on the ownership of the theatre. Hence, I feel it appropriate for both the parties to settle their dispute through proper court of law and approach licensing authority for renewal of license.” After passing the said order, respondent No.2 approached respondent No.1 for deleting certain observations from the order. Thereupon, respondent No.1 passed order dated 12.12.2001 by deleting the words “and approach the licensing authority for renewal of license” from his earlier order dated 21.07.2001. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that order dated 12.12.2001 was passed without notice to the petitioner. He also submitted that respondent No.1 is not conferred with the power of review under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’). He contended that in the absence of a specific provision of review, respondent No.1 has no authority to review his earlier order by deleting certain words therefrom. The fact that there is no specific provision under the Act conferring the power of review of respondent No.1 is not in dispute. The law is well settled that a statutory authority exercising quasi judicial functions is not entitled to review its own order unless the statute under which it exercised its power confers such a power on it. As no power of review is conferred on respondent No.1, order dated 12.12.2001 is per se without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 was not justified in drawing his conclusions on the basis of unregistered documents produced by respondent No.2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the first partnership deed was registered and there is no requirement of compulsory registration of partnership deeds and therefore the subsequent deeds were not registered. As these aspects are required to be adjudicated by respondent No.1, I deem it appropriate to quash both the orders impugned in this writ petition with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider the matter afresh and pass an appropriate order, after giving the petitioner and respondent No.2 an opportunity of hearing, on the basis of the material available and without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order and also the orders passed by him impugned in this writ petition. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.Nos.201 and 202 of 2003 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 06.02.2009 ES