IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 26863 of 2008 Between: Gorantla Ramanatha Babu S/o. Late Sri Venkateswarlu Garu R/o. Bhagya Nagar, III Lane, Ongole - 523 001. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by the Principal Secretary Appellate Authority under A.P. Cinema [Regulation] Act, State Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Collector & Licensing Authority District Collectorate Prakasam, Ongole, Prakasam Dist. 3 Gorantla Veera Narayana Babu S/o. Late Sri Venkateswarlu Garu C/o. Srinivasa & Padmavathi & Sri Devi Cinema Complex, Ongole, Prakasam Dist. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 Mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to consider the objections dated 07-11-2008 as per law and dispose of the same after affording an opportunity of hearing the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.JAGDISH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 26863 of 2008 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 7.11.2008 filed by the petitioner, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and dispose of the same as per law. It appears, the petitioner had filed O.S. No. 152 of 1999 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole for dissolution of partnership and for rendition of mesne profits. The said suit was decreed on 1.4.2002 and said to have attained finality. While that being so, the grievance of the petitioner is that he made a representation to respondent No.1 – appellate authority under the Act and the Rules, on 7.11.2008, raising certain objections, but the same has not been considered by the respondents as required under the law. There is no necessity of going into all the details. Though no counter is filed by respondents 1 and 2, learned Government Pleader appearing for the said respondents submitted that no such representation dated 7.11.2008 was received by the official respondents. However, it is stated, that on 10.12.2008 i.e. after filing the writ petition, a representation was received by the respondents. Though counter is filed by respondent No.3 denying the allegations made by the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of without going into the merits of the case and directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner on 7.11.2008/10.12.2008 and pass appropriate orders, as per law, after hearing all the parties concerned, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. C.V. RAMULU, J. Date: 24-12-2008. Note: C.C. in a week. (BO) MVB.