M/S. Sai Lakshmi Sri Sai Lakshmi ... vs The State Of Ap
2022 Latest Caselaw 155 AP

          HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AT AMARAVATI

                  MAIN CASE No.W.P.No.31230 of 2021

                            PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.   DATE                         ORDER                                  OFFICE
No.                                                                        NOTE
(1) 17-01-2022 CMR, J.                                                   Transferred
                                                                         to I.O.
                                                                         Folder.
                  Delete the name of Government Pleader for Mines
              and Geology in the cause-list.
                  Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home
              takes notice for respondents 1 to 5 and requests time
              to file counter-affidavit.
                  Post the matter after four weeks.

                                  I.A.No.1 of 2021

                  The petitioner is a cinema theatre in the name

              and style "M/s.Sai Lakshmi - Sri Sai Lakshmi

              Theatres AC" represented by its partner P. Pavan

              Kumar.

                  Challenging the G.O. issued by the Government

              fixing the rates of admission into cinema theatres i.e.

              G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 08.04.2021, the petitioner has

              earlier filed W.P.No.27336 of 2021 before this Court.

              In I.A.No.1 of 2021 of the said Writ Petition, this

              Court found fault with the fixing of rates of

              admission into cinema theatres in the said G.O. in

              view of the earlier judgments of this Court passed in

              the case of Thirumala Theatre, Khammam rep. by

              its Partner v. Government of A.P. (2012 (6) ALT

              326).    As the petitioner could make out a strong

              prima facie case in the said Writ Petition warranting

              interference of this Court to examine the legal validity

              of the impugned G.O.Ms.No.35 in fixing the rates of

              admission into cinema theatres on the basis of the

              regional classification and other classifications, in
                             2


the main Writ Petition, this Court, as per order dated

14.12.2021 passed in the aforesaid I.A.No.1 of 2021,

permitted the petitioner to run the cinema theatre as

per the rates prevailing prior to passing of the said

G.O. as per the procedure that was in vogue by that

time. However, directed that the said rates of

admission shall be fixed in consultation with the

Joint Collector, who is the licensing authority, after

giving prior intimation to him. The said order passed

in the said I.A.No.1 of 2021 was challenged before

the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench

also, by its order dated 16.12.2022, after hearing the

learned Advocate-General for the appellant and the

counsel for the respondents therein, directed that the

order of the learned Single Judge of this Court shall

be complied with.

      Now, it is the grievance of the writ petitioner that

the     writ   petitioner   has   approached    the   Joint

Collector, who is the licensing authority, in terms of

the above order passed by this Court, to fix the rates

of admission into cinema theatre. However, the Joint

Collector did not take any decision on it and did not

pass any order till now.          Whileso, it appears that

respondents 3 to 5 visited the cinema theatre and

restrained the petitioner from screening the films in

the said theatre even without serving any notice on

the petitioner and without initiating any proceedings

according to law.

      The respondents 3 to 5 are not authorised by the

Joint Collector, who is the licensing authority, to visit
                         3


the cinema theatre and to inspect the same.       They

did not produce any such orders before the petitioner

at the time of the said inspection. Rule 17(6) of the

Andhra Pradesh Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1970

mandates that only a person authorised by the Joint

Collector is empowered to inspect the cinema theatre.

As no such orders are produced by the respondents 3

to 5 before the petitioner at the time of the said

inspection, they are not authorised under law to

inspect the said cinema theatre and to restrain the

petitioner from screening/exhibiting the films in the

said cinema theatre. Therefore, the said acts of the

respondents 3 to 5 in restraining the petitioner from

screening/ exhibiting the films in the cinema theatre

is legally unsustainable.

    Therefore, the petitioner could make out a strong

prima facie case warranting interference of this Court

to examine in the main Writ Petition regarding the

legal validity of the said acts of the respondents 3 to

5 in restraining the petitioner from screening/

exhibiting the films in the cinema theatre without

any authorisation.

    In the said facts and circumstances of the case,

there shall be interim direction to the respondents 2

to 5 not to restrain the petitioner from screening/

exhibiting the films in the cinema theatre, till the

next date of hearing.


                                             _________
                                              CMR, J.

cs