IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 1474 OF 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 13.08.2009 in WVMP Nos. 1959 & 2263 of 2009 in WPMP No. 1248/2009 in WP No. 980 of 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Sri Venkateswara 70 MM Nakrekal, Nalgonda District, Rep. By its Managing Director Sri Venkateswarlu and others ..... APPELLANTS AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By its Secretary, Home, Secretariat, Hyderadad and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) The present Writ Appeal is preferred against the interlocutory order passed by a learned Single Judge in WVMP Nos. 1959 & 2263 of 2009 in WPMP No. 1248/2009 in WP No. 980 of 2009 dated 13.8.2009. The appellants herein are the writ petitioners. They filed the above writ petition seeking to declare the action of the first respondent in not enhancing the admission rate for different classes in the theatres as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to set aside G.O. Ms. No. 369 Home General A Department dated 18.12.2008. In the above writ petition, the appellants filed WPMP No. 1248 of 2009 seeking to direct the second respondent to permit the theatres to run with enhanced rates as per applications dated 24.12.2008, 19.1.2009, 21.1.2009 and 22.1.2009. Whereas the above Vacate Petitions were filed by the Government to vacate the order dated 27.01.2009 in WPMP No. 1248 of 2009. The learned Single Judge by his common order, while allowing the vacate petitions dismissed the above W.P.M.P. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Appeal is filed by the writ petitioners. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader and perused the material available on record. As stated earlier, the order under appeal is a common order passed in interlocutory applications in a batch of writ petitions. In view of the pendency of the batch of writ petitions on the same issue, we feel that it is not appropriate to express any opinion on merits of the case inasmuch as the opinion, if any, expressed in the course of these interlocutory proceedings, may touch merits of the contentions that may be urged at the time of hearing of the batch of the writ petitions. In this view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order under appeal. However, in view of the nature of controversy involved, Registry is directed to post the writ petition for final hearing as early as possible. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar January 20, 2010 MAS.