IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 12896 of 2008 Between: M/s. Srinivas Mahal, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, rep. by its Proprietor, A.V.Koteswara Rao ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendent of Police, Guntur District, Guntur. 3 The Station House Officer, Mangalagiri Town, Mangalagiri, Guntur district. .....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 to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in seizing the Theatre ( Srinivasa Mahal, Mangalagiri, Guntur District ) as illegal, arbitrary, null and viod and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 12896 of 2008 Oral Order: On an allegation of exhibition of an unauthorized clipping in the theater by name Srinivasa Mahal, Mangalagiri, Guntur District of which the petitioner is a licensee, Crime No. 137 of 2007 on the ﬁle of Station House Oﬃcer, Mangalagiri Police Station, Guntur District is registered against the petitioner on 01-08- 2007 under the provisions of Section 3, 4 and 6 of Indecent Representation of Woman (Prohibition) Act, 1986; Section 7 of the Cinematography Act, 1952; and Section 292 (2) of IPC read with Section 8 of the Prevention of Disﬁgurement of Open Places and Prohibition of Obscene and Objectionable Posters & Advertisements Act, 1997. The mediators report was drawn up on 01-08-2007 in which the factual assertions as to the prohibited conduct by the petitioner are set out. The petitioner alleges that after inspection of the petitioner’s theatre, the theatre was seized and sealed by the respondents without any lawful authority to do so. The learned Government Pleader for Home on obtaining instructions from the 3rd respondent sates that the police have neither seized nor sealed the petitioner’s theater and that the ﬁrst information has been registered and after investigation a charge sheet has also been ﬁled by way of C.C.No. 293 of 2007 on the ﬁle of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mangalagiri. In the light of the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader for Home on instructions from the 3rd respondent denying that the police have seized or sealed the theater, the grievance of the petitioner does not subsist. Recording the submission on behalf of the respondents, the writ petition is dismissed as ‘infructuous’. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 26-08-2008 pvks