HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20356 of 2002 Date : 02.11.2009 Between : Sri Durga Kala Mandir, Kothagudem, rep. by its Partner. …..Petitioner And The Joint Collector, Khammam District. …..Respondent HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20356 of 2002 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.06.2002, passed by the respondent in Proceedings No.C2/1010/2001, imposing a penalty of Rs.10,000/- on him, in exercise of powers under Section 10 (2A) of the A.P. Cinematography Act, 1955. 2. The petitioner is an exhibiter of films and is a licensee under the A.P. Cinematography Act, 1955. He made an application to enhance the rates of admission for a period of three weeks from 11th January 2001 to 1st February 2001, in view of the release of a high-budget film. When the respondent did not act upon, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.25455 of 2000 and obtained interim orders for enhancement of rates of admission. Subsequently, he also filed an application for reduction of rates with effect from 02.02.2001, and reacting on such application filed by the petitioner, the respondent has passed orders on 22.06.2002, permitting for reduction in rates. 3. Penalty is imposed on the petitioner through the impugned order, alleging that he has violated the orders passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.308, dated 11.11.1997, and adopted the increased rates of admission without incorporating such rates in the B-form license. 4. However, in this case, it is to be noticed that such increase in rates of admission was permissible as per the orders of Government in G.O.Ms.No.308, dated 11.11.1997. Though such increased rates for a limited period were not endorsed in B-form license, but such increase was only pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court in writ petition No.25455 of 2000, filed by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, as the increased rates were collected based on the interim orders passed by this Court, it cannot be said that the petitioner has violated any of the provisions of the Cinematography Act, so as to impose penalty. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.06.2002, passed by the respondent in Proceedings No.C2/1010/2001, is set aside. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 2nd November 2009 ajr