IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13807 of 2008 Between: Sri Gopalakrishna Theatre, Anakapalli, rep. by its Manager Sri. M.Narasinga Rao, S/o. Sri Rajaiah R/o.Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Department of Home (Cinematography), Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Joint Collector and Licensing Authority, Visakhapatnam District. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 4 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Tahsildar, Anakapalli Mandal, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to dispose off the appeal filed by the petitioner herein as expeditiously and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.AKKAM ESHWAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following, at the stage of admission : ORAL ORDER: The Writ Petition is misconceived. On allegation that the petitioner was exhibiting an obscene clipping interspersed in a regular film, the licence of the petitioner after a process of show cause notice dated 28.5.2008 was suspended by the Joint Collector and Licensing Authority, Visakhapatnam by the order dated 12.6.2008, in exercise of powers under Section 10 (2) (b) of A.P. Cinematograph (Regulation) Act, 1955. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 18.6.2008 to the 1st respondent and this Writ Petition on 27.6.2008, 9 days thereafter seeking expeditious disposal of the appeal. The expectations of the petitioner are misconceived. The appellate authority must have sufficient time consistent with the quasi- judicial priorities of the 1st respondent to determine the time-frame within which the appeal should be disposed of. Needless to mention the 1st respondent is required to dispose of the appeal expeditiously. As the Writ Petition is filed just 9 days after filing of the appeal, the grievance is misconceived, as is the Writ Petition. It is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home. There shall be no order as to costs. GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 1.7.2008 cvm