IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 24051 of 2008 Between: Devi Theatre, Rep by its Punuru Eswaramma, W/o. Late Kota Reddy, Aged about 65 years, R/o. Kavali, Sri Potti Sreeramulu, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by the Secretary, Home and Cinematography, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Collector, Sri Potti Sreramulu Nellore District, Nellore. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, Sri Potti Sreeramulu, Nellore 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring a) the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 27-9-2008 bearing Rc.C6(M) 942/2008 in directing stoppage of screening of ﬁlms in Devi Theatre, Kavali, Sri Potti Sreeramulu Nellore District as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and in violation of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of constitution of India and principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside the same b) the inaction on the part of the 1st respondent to consider and pass necessary orders in stay application and appeal ﬁled by the petitioner against the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 27-9-2008 bearing Rc. C6(M) 942/2008 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and in violation of provisions of AP Cinema (Regulations) Act, 1955, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.VENKATA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 24051 of 2008 O R D E R : This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a declaration that the proceedings, dated 27-09-2008, under which the second respondent invoking the powers under Section 10(2)(b) of the A.P. Cinema (Regulations) Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) ordered that the screening of pictures in the petitioner theatre shall be stopped with immediate effect is arbitrary and illegal. At the outset, it is to be noted that as against the impugned order, an eﬃcacious alternative remedy of appeal is available under Section 10(4) of the Act and as a matter of fact, the petitioner has already preferred such an appeal along with an application for interim stay. However, the petitioner states that the ﬁrst respondent failed to consider the same and no orders have been passed even on his application for stay so far. In the circumstances, though I am not inclined to go into the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the ﬁrst respondent to dispose of the petitioner’s application for stay ﬁled in the appeal against the order of the second respondent dated 27-09-2008 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 04-11-2008 KLP Note: furnish c.c. by today. B/o kgr