Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Mr Atyam Venkata Satya Kumar, vs The Geetha Entertainment Private ... on 16 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT APPEAL No.827 of 2021
(Through physical mode)
Atyam Venkata Satya Kumar,
S/o. Someswara Rao, Age 61 years,
R/o. Flat No.201, DBV Raju Enclave, Walkers Road,
Anna Venkata Appa Rao Road, Rajahmundry,
Andhra Pradesh, 533 106.
.. Appellant
Versus
The Geetha Entertainment Private Limited,
(A Company incorporated under the provisions
of the Indian Companies Act),
Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,
# 1067, Road No.45, Jubilee Hills,
Hyderabad - 500 033 and others.
.. Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. N. Ashwani Kumar
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, Sr. Counsel
for Mr. Peeta Raman
Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 : GP for Home
ORAL JUDGMENT
Dt: 16.12.2021
(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)
This writ appeal is preferred against the interim order dated
08.12.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in
W.P.No.28383 of 2021, directing the Joint Collector-cum-Licensing Authority,
as an interim measure, to renew the B-Form license of the writ petitioner
(first respondent herein) within two days from the date of the order. It was
also observed that the Licensing Authority was at liberty to pass an order in
HCJ & MSM,J
accordance with law after considering the explanation submitted by the writ
petitioner to the show-cause notice issued.
2. The appellant is the lessor and the writ petitioner is the lessee of the
cinema theatre in question. The appellant is arrayed as fourth respondent in
the writ petition. In the main prayer of the writ petition, the writ petitioner
sought for a direction to the second and third respondents therein in general
and the second respondent in particular to renew B-Form license of the writ
petitioner within no time, duly ignoring the objections raised by the fourth
respondent-lessor and without reference to the show-cause notice dated
21.06.2021, received on 22.06.2021, allowing the lessee to screen the
movies forthwith.
3. Admittedly, the interim order under appeal has been passed without
hearing the appellant/fourth respondent.
4. In the course of hearing, it is informed that after passing of the
interim order under appeal, the Licensing Authority has renewed the B-Form
license of the writ petitioner, in compliance with the direction issued by the
learned single Judge. However, the writ petition is still pending
consideration.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view
the nature of dispute and circumstances, without adverting to the merits of
the contentions raised by the appellant or the writ petitioner, we deem it
appropriate to dispose of the writ appeal directing the Licensing Authority to
re-consider the issue concerning renewal of B-Form license of the writ
petitioner, after affording opportunity of hearing to the appellant and the
writ petitioner, and pass a reasoned order dealing with all the objections
raised by the appellant, within a period of ten days from today. Till then,
status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained. It is made clear that
HCJ & MSM,J
the order of the Licensing Authority or the order under appeal shall not
affect the merits of the suit filed by the appellant and the said suit shall be
decided on its own merits in accordance with law.
6. With the above directions and observation, the writ appeal is disposed
of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J
IBL
