IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF June 10, 2009 TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17727 of 2004 Between : V. Lakshmi Nageswara Rao, S/o. Late Venkata Ratnam, R/o. Machilipatnam, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Joint Collector, Krishna District, at Machilipatnam 2 Goriparthy Narasimha Raju, S/o. Late Venkata Subbaiah, formerly Managing Partner of now dissolved firm Brindavan Talkies, Kojjilipet, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 3 Brindavan Talkies, formely registered firm, now under dissolution, represented by G. Narasimha Raju, Kojjilipet, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in permitting screening of the film in Brindavan Talkies Theatre, Machilipatnam, belonging to the 3rd respondent herein as illegal and void. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.K.DURGA PRASADVAK Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a declaration by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent No.1 in permitting screening of films in the 3rd respondent/theatre, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Initially, a partnership Firm, namely, ‘Brindavan Talkies Partnership Firm’, was constituted on 11th of August 1988. Since then, by obtaining license as contemplated under the provisions of the A.P.Cinema (Regulation) Rules, films are being screened in the 3rd respondent/theatre. Initially, license was issued in the name of the then Managing Partner of the Firm, by name, Mahalaxmamma, and whenever there was change of Managing Partner, the license was being issued in the name of the new Managing Partner, for exhibition of films. Subsequently, the Partnership Firm was re-constituted on 07.11.2003 with the 2nd respondent as its Managing Partner. After re- constitution of the partnership Firm, on the application submitted by the 2nd respondent, fresh license was issued for exhibition of films in the name of the 2nd respondent. 3. This writ petition is filed mainly on the ground that though an application was filed by the 2nd respondent to change the B-Form license in his name, but during the pendency of the said application, and even before grant of license in favour of 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent is allowing respondents 2 and 3, to exhibit films. The learned counsel Sri M.S.Prasad, appearing for the 2nd and 3rd respondents, has placed on record a copy of the license issued by the 1st respondent/Joint Collector in the name of the 2nd respondent, for exhibition of films. 4. Asmuch as the license is already issued in the name of the 2nd respondent, and as the petitioner has not questioned the validity of the said license, it cannot be said that respondent No.1 is allowing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to run the theatre without valid license. In that view of the matter, I do not find any ground for grant of directions as prayed for. 5. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th June 2009 ajr