IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 15729 of 2008 Between: A. Osman Ali S/o. A. Ahmmed Hussain 1-43/3/1, Atmakur Town, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Kurnool District at Kurnool. 2 The Joint Collector, Kurnool District at Kurnool. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, at Hyderabad. .....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 appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not passing any orders on the application submitted by the petitioner dt. 19-6-2008 for Renewal of Video Licence as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and consequently direct the respondents consider and pass appropriate orders for renewal of Licence of the Video Theatre run by the petitioner in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM W.P.No. 15729 of 2008 Oral Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home for respondents. In Atmakur town of Kurnool District, the petitioner was running a Video Theatre by name Sony Video Theatre at premises bearing door No 1-43/3/1. He was granted a license for the purpose being renewed from year to year and the last renewal was valid up to 08- 09-2007. He claims to have made an application for renewal of license beyond 08-09-2007, in time and in accordance with the A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970 (for short ‘the Rules’). However, the 1st respondent has not yet passed orders. Though the petitioner asserts in paragraph No.2 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that he had a license valid only up to 08-09-2007, in paragraph No.3 of the affidavit, it is pleaded that the Station House Officer, Atmakur Police Station had inspected the premises on 22-02-2008 and on an allegation of exhibiting an obscene video film, he seized the video C.D and D.V.D. Player and a crime No. 17 of 2008 under Section 292 IPC was registered. The petitioner was apprehended and released on bail. Again on 27-02-2008 the Deputy Tahasildar, Atmakur had visited the premises and sealed the theatre. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No. 4710 of 2008 which was disposed of on 31-03-2008 directing the respondents to release the theatre and handover the possession to the petitioner. The petitioner’s substantive grievance herein is that the 1st respondent has not passed any order on the petitioner’s application for renewal of the Video Theatre license. Appendix IX of the Rules, 1970 sets out the Regulations (Rules) applicable to public exhibition of films on video. Paragraph No. 2 (c ) (i) of the Rules in Appendix-IX of the Rules confers a discretion on the licensing authority to decline grant of a license if the authority is satisfied that the provisions of the Rules have not been fulfilled or that it is not in the interest of health and safety of the public that a license should be granted. It is therefore open to the 1st respondent to consider whether the involvement of the petitioner in Cr.No. 17/2008 and the prima facie transgression of the norms of a video theatre by him constitute adequate ground for declining the license. In any event, the 1st respondent is required to arrive at a conclusion because the power to grant or refuse license has a concomitant obligation to take a decision one way or the other. On the analysis above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent expeditiously and in any event within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, pass an order on the petitioner’s application for renewal of his video theater license. The decision of the 1st respondent shall be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid time. The writ petition is disposed of as above. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 12-08-2008 pvks