IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 13080 of 2005 BETWEEN: V. Kishan Rao, Managing Director of M/s. Kamala Enterprises, 60M2-3RT, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad-38. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of A.P., Rep by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Collector & Licensing Authority (Cinemas), Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Memo.No.11051/Genl.A1/2005-1, dt.11-5-2005 as illegal, null, void and arbitrary; and consequently direct the respondents to grant extension of time to the petitioner for construction of the theatre; and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner questions the Memorandum No.11051/Genl.A1/2005-1 dated 11.05.2005 of the Government of Andhra Pradesh General Home Department in informing the petitioner that even after issuance of the No Objection Certificate for construction of theatre on 01.11.1995 the construction has not been taken up as such, the renewal of NOC is not considered, however, it is kept open to him to apply for fresh NOC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, the District Collector, Nalgonda recommended to the Principal Secretary, Home (Genl.A) Department, Secretariat vide letter in Lr.No.H7/18894/004 dated 15.03.2005 to accord permission in favour of the petitioner for construction of Srinivasa 70 MM theater at Bhongir town, but the said recommendation was not at all considered favourably and without giving any notice the representation has been dismissed. He further submits that, in fact, the construction of theater is almost completed pursuant to the earlier NOC and it is incorrect to state that the petitioner has not at all constructed the theatre after obtaining NOC. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper for the petitioner to make fresh application for extending the earlier NOC before the Joint Collector and if any such application is received, after conducting necessary enquiry the same shall be forwarded to the first respondent for taking appropriate decision on the said application. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J July 3, 2008 DSK