Telangana High Court
WP/23037/2004 of Jayalakshmi Theatre, Tadepalligudem, Vs Joint Collector, on 28 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23037 of 2004 Between: 1 Jayalakshmi Theatre, Tadepalligudem, Nidadavole, West
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 23037 of 2004
Between:
1 Jayalakshmi Theatre, Tadepalligudem, Nidadavole, West Godavari District. Rep. by its Managing Partner K.S. Prasad, S/o. Tataji, aged 21 Years.
2 Sri Lakshmi Pandhuranga Theatre, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Managing Partner
V.V. Raghavulu, S/o. Suryarao, aged 57 Years, R/o. lNidadavole, West Godavari District.
3 Theatre Sri Trinadh, Devarapalli, West Godavari District.
Rep. by its Proprietor T. Prabhakara Rao, S/o. Rama Rao, aged 48 Years, R/o. Devarapalli, West Godavari District.
4 Swapna Theatre, Ganapavaram,
Rep. by its Manager S. Venkatramaraju, S/o. Ramaraju, 50 Years, Ganapavaram, West Godavari District.
AND
... PETITIONERS
The Joint Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru.
...RESPONDENT
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toissue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction declaring theaction of the respondent in not making endorsement in B Form licence of thepetitioner theatres for enhancement of admission rates as per the application dated2-12-2004 and 8-12-2004, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent to pass orders.
Counsel for the Petitioners: MRS.P. RADHIKACounsel for the Respondent: GP FOR HOME
The Court at the admission stage made the following :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R:
The petitioners are the cinema theatres. They submitted an application dated2.12.2004 to the respondent, seeking permission to revise the existing rates oftickets for all the three classes, for a period of two weeks, during exhibition of the filmentitled “Vijayendravarma”. Alleging that no orders have been passed so far,petitioners seek appropriate directions in this regard.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader forHome.
Through the application dated 2.12.2004, the petitioners intended to double theexisting rates of tickets to be in force for a period of two weeks. The matter of fixationof maximum rates of payment for admission into different classes of theatre isprovided for under Rule 11-B (3) of A.P. Cinema (Regulations) Rules, 1970.According to the same, the rates are to be fixed by the licensing authority, and oncefixed, such rates would be in force till the expiry of such licence. There is also aprovision, which enables the licensing authority to revise the rates through an orderin writing. The rule is not clear as to whether such revision of rates is for theremaining part of the licence period, or for any spells, as may be desired by theowner of the theatre. Further, the question as to whether the proposed enhancementis in public interest or desirable, needs to be considered by the licensing authority.The High Court cannot undertake such an exercise. Having regard to the fact thatthe enhancement is sought for a limited period with reference to a particular film, therespondent is under obligation to pass appropriate orders without further delay.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent to pass appropriateorders on the application dated 2.12.2004 submitted by the petitioners, without anyfurther delay, duly taking into account, the relevant provisions of law. There shall beno order as to costs.
Note:Operative portion by wire
at party’s cost.
(B/o)
pan
_________________
14[th] December, 2004
To
1 The Joint Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru.
2 Two C.Cs to the Govt.Pleader for Home, High Court buildings, Hyderabad (OUT).
3 Two CD copies