IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 10348 of 2008 Between: 1 Shaik Ziawooddin Ahmed S/o. Shaik Abdul Lateef Proprietors Sydiya Picture Palace, Rayachoti, Kadapa District. 2 Shaik Naseeruddin Ahmed S/o. Shaik Abdul Lateef Proprietors Sydiya Picture Palace, Rayachoti, Kadapa District. 3 Shaik Moinddin Ahmed S/o. Shaik Abdul Lateef Proprietors Sydiya Picture Palace, Rayachoti, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Joint Collector, Kadapa Dist. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadapa. 3 The Tahsildar, Rayachoti, Kadapa 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 a writ of Mandamus declaring proceeding in R.Dis C4/ 857/M/2007 dated 25.03.2008 in so far as the said proceeding related to Sydiya Picture Palace, Rayachoti as illegal, violative of Principles of Natural justice and Art.14 of the Constitution of India and consequently pass such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.S.V.BHATT Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 10348 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners impeach herein the order of the 1st respondent dated 25.3.2008, whereby and whereunder, in purported exercise of the powers under the A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 and the A.P. Cinemas (Regulations) Rules, 1970, the ‘B’ Form licence granted in favour of Sydiya Picture Palace, Rayachoti and M/s. Sony Raj, had been suspended and the theatres ordered to be closed. The order of the 1st respondent further directs the 3rd respondent to seize the theatres and report compliance. By the 1st respondent’s order dated 25.3.2008, an identical disciplinary/regulatory action was taken against two theatres of Rayachoti, namely Sydia Picture Palace and another, by name, M/s. Sony Raj. In respect of Sony Raj, one G. Abdul Sattar, claiming to be the Managing Partner of Sony Raj, ﬁled Writ Petition No. 14088 of 2008. A learned single Judge of this Court, by the order dated 3.7.2008, disposed of the said writ petition declaring that the Act and the Regulations do not enable seizure of the theatre, but only enable action in respect of the ‘B’ Form licence issued or an executive action ensuring closure of the theatre, namely, cessation of the screening of ﬁlms or interdiction of the screening of any ﬁlm without a valid and operative licence. With regard to the seizure of the theatre, this Court emphatically declared that no such power exists in the respondents and also has recorded the submission of the learned Government Pleader for Home that the expression ‘theatre shall be closed” in the order impugned therein, which is identical to the order impugned herein, is merely indicative of the intent that no ﬁlms shall be exhibited since there is no current and operative licence enabling such exhibition. Learned Government Pleader for Home in that writ petition, assayed such a curative interpretation with a view to save the order from invalidation on account of the error in the phraseology employed in the order. In the light of the principle declared and the interpretation placed on the 1st respondent’s order dated 25.3.2008 impugned in this writ petition, in the judgment in W.P. No. 14088 of 2008, no separate reasons need be recorded in this writ petition. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 3.7.2008, in Writ Petition No. 14088 of 2008. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J DATE: 6th August, 2008 pnb