HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.5660 of 2010 DATE: 23.06.2014 Between:
Gopalakrishna Kalamandir, Bhadrachalam, Khammam district Rep. by its Managing Partner ... Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home (General-A) Department Hyderabad & others … Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.5660 of 2010 ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 6 and the learned counsel for respondents 7 to 10.
2. This writ petition was filed challenging the action of the 4th respondent in passing the order in Rc.No.B/1097/2007 dated 08.03.2010 ordering stoppage of exhibition of the films in the petitioner’s theatre.
3. The 4th respondent passed an order on 08.03.2010 pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in WP No.27978 of 2008 dated 08.06.2009 filed by respondents 7 and 8. In his order, he narrated the sequence of events and ultimately came to the conclusion that the petitioner was running the theatre and exhibiting films beyond 31.03.2008 without any licence. His application for duplicate licence was rejected on 14.05.2008. The 4th respondent also observed that there were disputes between the petitioner on one hand and respondents 7 and 8 on the other. The proceedings under the A.P. Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation for ejectment are also pending before the competent authority. By taking all these facts into consideration, the 4th respondent opined that running of the theatre since 01.04.2008, in the absence of licence under A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 and Rules made there under, is illegal as per Section 3 of the said Act and accordingly ordered for closure.
4. This Court by order dated 11.03.2010, suspended the said proceedings and directed the 3rd respondent to permit the petitioner to run the theatre provided the petitioner made its application for renewal within the time limit prescribed under the statutory provisions and the renewal application is still pending without being rejected so far. But the learned counsel for respondents 7 to 8 submits that the application of petitioner for renewal was rejected, however, a temporary licence was granted on 24.06.2010 for a period of six months and if made application on 31.08.2010 for extension of the said period and that application was returned on 03.02.2011. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed WP No.3252 of 2011. The theatre was again seized on 13.06.2011 and challenging the same, WP No.16444 of 2011 was filed and both the above writ petitions are pending in this Court.
5. In view of the subsequent developments, nothing survives for adjudication in the present writ petition.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. Pending miscellaneous petitions in this writ petition, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No order as to costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J
Date: 23.06.2014 BSS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO 9 WRIT PETITION No.5660 of 2010 Date: 23.06.2014 BSS