Telangana High Court
WP/12112/1996 of T.Venkateswarlu, Vs The State of A.P., on 29 December 2008
MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12112 of 1996 ORDER: The petitioner is the proprietor of a Cinema Theatre at Kandukur, Prakasam District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, visited the theatre on 20.01.1996 and found that the petitioner violated the conditions of licence,
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.12112 of 1996
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.
ORDER:
The petitioner is the proprietor of a Cinema Theatre at Kandukur,Prakasam District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, visitedthe theatre on 20.01.1996 and found that the petitioner violated theconditions of licence, be it as regards the seating capacity or themaintenance of proper sanitary conditions. On the basis of the report,the Joint Collector, Prakasam, the second respondent, issued a showcause notice to the petitioner on 26.02.1996, directing the petitioner toexplain as to why a fine of Rs.10,000/- be not levied. The petitionersubmitted his explanation on 15.03.1996. Not being satisfied with theexplanation, the second respondent passed an order, dated10.05.1996, imposing the fine of Rs.10,000/-. Aggrieved thereby, thepetitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent. The appealwas returned by stating that the petitioner should pay a further amountof Rs.100/- towards Court fee and that the entire amount of Rs.10,000/-, imposed as fine, must be deposited. The petitioner feels aggrievedby the orders passed by the respondents.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learnedGovernment Pleader for Home.
The petitioner contends that there was failure of power supply atabout 7 p.m., when the picture was being exhibited and not being ableto bear the suffocation, the audience in the theatre from the secondclass have shifted to the first class area and this, in turn, was treated asa violation on the part of the petitioner. It is also stated that the sanitaryconditions were maintained properly. After issuing a show causenotice, the second respondent passed an order imposing the fine ofRs.10,000/-.
The stand taken by the first respondent in issuing memo, dated04.06.1996, requiring the petitioner to deposit the entire amount ofRs.10,000/-, cannot be countenanced. There is no provision under the A.P. Cinema Regulation Act or the Rules made thereunder requiringan appellant to deposit the entire amount imposed as fine. As a matterof fact, if the entire fine is deposited, nothing remains to be adjudicatedin the appeal. Such a step can be resorted to on specific provision oflaw. Strictly speaking, it is a case where the first respondent isrequired to entertain the appeal, without insisting on the deposit of fineamount. The second respondent passed order against the petitionerway back in the year 1996. While admitting the writ petition, this Courtgranted stay on payment of Rs.2,500/-. It is stated that the amount hassince been deposited. This Court is of the view that the ends of justicewould be met, if the petitioner is required to pay a further sum ofRs.1,000/-.
Hence, the Writ Petition is partly allowed modifying the order,dated 10.05.1996, passed by the second respondent reducing theamount of fine to Rs.3,500/-. There shall be no order as to costs.
Dt.29.12.2008GJ
_______________________
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J