Sankaranarayanan Vs the Principal Secretary

Rajammal 10. Soundara Rajalakshmi 11. Somasundaram 12. S.Shanmugam 13. Shanmugasundari 14. Saraswathy 15. Vijayalakshmi 16. Soundara Kalyani 17. Nellainayagam 18. P.Meenakshi

¶24

Marudhupandian [R19 impleaded as respondent vide court order dated 24.02.2025 in C.M.P.No.1967 of 2025 in W.A.No.80 of 2025 by SMSJ & KRSJ] ... Respondents

¶25

Prayer: Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to set

¶26

aside the order dated 24.10.2024 in W.P.No.30420 of 2012.

¶27

F or Appellants : Mr.M.Solaisamy For Respondents : Mr.T.Chandrasekaran Special Government Pleader for R1 to R3

¶28

: Mr.T.M.Pappiah for R4

¶29

: Mr.M.Dinesh for R19

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. )

¶32

Considering the narrow scope of the writ appeal, the matter has been

¶33

taken up for final hearing with the consent of all the parties.

¶34

Page 2 of 6

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.A.No.80 of 2025

¶37

Under assail is the order dated 24.10.2024 passed in W.P.No.30420 of 2012.

¶38

Admittedly, Partition Suit in O.S.Nos.619 of 2011 and Suit for Permanent Injunction in O.S.No.860 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Madurai are subjudice.

¶39

During the pendency of the civil suits, the appellants have filed an application seeking license to run Balan Talkies (Cinema Theatre). The competent Authority rejected the application on the ground that the rights between the legal heirs are not crystallized and one of the legal heirs has raised an objection for grant of license. Thus, the Authority had relegated the parties to resolve the dispute through civil Court of Law and approach the Authority for obtaining license. An appeal was filed before the Government, which was rejected. Thereafter, the revision filed by one Mr.S.Arumugam was also rejected by the Government vide G.O. [2D] No.341, Home (Cinema) Department dated 12.10.2012. The Government afforded opportunity to all the parties. Personal hearing opportunities were also

¶40

Page 3 of 6

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

W.A.No.80 of 2025

¶43

granted by the Government to the parties. The findings of the Government

¶44

reveals that the title and possession over the property is disputed and the

¶45

matter is pending before the civil Court of competent jurisdiction. As per Rule 123(C) of Tamil Nadu Cinemas( Regulation) Rules, 1957 in case of an application made by one of the legal heirs of the licensee, the applicant shall send the consent statement obtained from all other legal heirs for the transfer or assignment of the license as the case may be in his or her favour.

¶46

Therefore, the Government has not considered the application

¶47

for want of consensus and consent amongst all the legal heirs. That being so, we do not find any perversity in respect of the findings made by the writ court in the order impugned.

¶48

The competent Authorities are not empowered to adjudicate the

¶49

civil disputes existing between the parties. Therefore, the parties are at liberty to resolve the civil dispute before the competent civil Court of law and after reaching finality or after arrival of consensus between the legal heirs submit an application seeking for a license.

¶50

Page 4 of 6

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

W.A.No.80 of 2025

¶53

In the result, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed . No costs.

¶54

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶55

[S.M.S,J.] [K.R.S,J.]