HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.561 of 2005 (M/S) Devraj Nayar and others All S/o Trilik Chand Nayyar … Petitioners Versus Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Garhwal and others …. Respondents Dated:- 14th September, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. By a sale deed dated 05.12.1997, a land was purchased jointly by the petitioners and the opposite parties having equal shares in it. Subsequently, the petitioners and the respondents created a partnership firm having specified shares and the said firm started running a picture hall on the land in question. The licence to run a picture hall is granted by the licencing authority. Since a dispute arose in the year 1997 between the partners of the firm, the petitioner no.1 Devraj Nayyar moved an application before the District Magistrate / Licensing Authority requesting to close the cinema hall. The District Magistrate, accordingly, passed an order dated 26th February, 1997 for closing the picture hall. Since no consensus was arrived at between the licensees, the licence was not renewed. One of the respondents, namely, Sri Madan Lal Nayyar filed Writ Petition No.99 of 1997, which was disposed of exparte by an order dated 09.04.1997 directing the said licensee to apply for renewal of the licence, which would be considered and disposed of by the authority after hearing the parties. Pursuant to the said order of the court, one of the licensee submitted a representation, on the basis of which, the licensing authority passed an order dated 24.12.1997 renewing the licence subject to certain terms and conditions, namely :- (i) That the judgment of competent court will be binding on the parties in respect of Cinema Hall. (ii) Shri Madan Lal Nayyar, who is conducting the administration of Cinema Hall, will maintain income and expenses of the Cinema Hall and Shri Devraj Nayyar can also watch the activities through his counsel and the District Entertainment Tax Officer, Haridwar shall also inspect the income and expenses of the Cinema and if any irregularities found in respect of account, then he will inform to the District Magistrate and the audit of income and expenses may be done by the District Magistrate and the audit fees shall be paid from the income of the Cinema.” By passing the order of the licensing authority, the renewal of licence was granted upto 31st March, 1998. It is alleged that the conditions imposed by the licensing authority was not fulfilled by the opposite parties and that the share in the profits was not given to the petitioners, nor the income and expenses were maintained, nor shown to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners made certain representations to the District Magistrate and, inspite of the representations, the District Magistrate renewed the licence in favour of the opposite parties. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction of the licensing authority, the petitioner no.1 preferred Writ Petition No.396 of 2004, which was disposed of by an order dated 17th May, 2004 directing the petitioner to submit a representation to the District Magistrate, who will consider and decide the same. Based on the said direction of the court, the District Magistrate / licensing authority passed an order dated 3 05th June, 2008 granting the licence to the petitioners observing that the opposite parties had not complied with the conditions mentioned in the earlier order dated 24.12.1997. The District Magistrate, by the said order, granted the licence to the petitioners, which was valid upto 31st March, 2006. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the opposite parties preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, which was allowed by an order dated 16th March, 2004 (wrongly transcribed as 16th March, 2004, whereas it should be 16th March, 2005). The petitioners, being aggrieved, have filed the present writ petition. When the case was called out, Mr. D. Barthwal, the learned counsel submitted that he has no instructions from the respondents. Heard Mr. Lok Pal Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. R. C. Arya, the learned brief holder for the State. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned brief holder for the State, the court is of the opinion that the writ petition has been rendered infructuous. The issue was with regard to the running of the picture hall. The validity of this licence was upto 31st March, 2006 which has expired and, consequently, no useful purpose would be served in deciding the matter on merit. In the opinion of the court, the writ petition has become infructuous. Even otherwise, the court finds from the perusal of the record that an award was made under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act between the parties. By the said award, the picture hall has been given in the share of the respondents pursuant to which, original suit No.106 of 2006 has been filed by the respondents directing the petitioners to execute a sale deed with relation to their half shares in the property in question. In the light of the aforesaid, this court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders. In the event, the opposite 4 parties are not maintaining the accounts nor paying the shares of the profits to the petitioners, it would be open to the petitioners to file a suit for rendition of accounts. The contention of the petitioners that the licence could not be renewed because a dispute is pending between the partners of the firm is incorrect. In Shambhoo Nath Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & others AIR 2005 Allahabad 313, it was held that under the Cinematograph Act, if a person who is in possession over a cinema on the basis of sale deeds executed in his favour to run the business, the licence could be renewed by the licensing authority and could not be rejected only on the pretext that there was a dispute regarding the premises in question between the partners of the firm. Consequently, in the light of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous and is dismissed with the observations that it would be open to the petitioners to object the renewal of the licence in favour of the opposite parties. If such objection is filed, the licensing authority will consider and decide the objection before renewing the licence. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 14.09.2010 LSR