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 GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 14088 of 2008 Between: G.Abdul Sattar S/o.Abdul Jaleel and partner of Sydia Theatres Bus Stand Road Rayachoty Kadapa District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of A.P Rep.by its Principal Secretary Home(GeneralA1) Dept Secretariat,Hyderabad 2 The Joint Collector Kadapa District Kadapa 3 The Tahsildar Rayachoti Kadapa District 4 Smt.B.S Ghoysiya Begum S/o.B.Mohammed Shajahan Door No.1/709 Dwaraka Nagar Colony Kadapa 5 Sri G.A.Kaleem S/o.late G.A Jaleel, 58/169 Kamsala Street Rayachoti Kadapa District 6 Sri G.Md Yousuf S/o.Late G.A Jaleel 58/169 Kamsala Street Rayathoty Kadapa District 7 Sri G.M.Sayeed S/o.Late G.A Jaleel 58/169 Kamsala Street Rayathoty Kadapa District 8 Smt. J.Fouzia Begum W/o.J.M.D Abid Near Radhika Talkies Bellary Karnakata State 9 Smt. S.Aliya Begum W/o.Shaik Kareem Shah Ali Door No.1-1-1-380/1 Ashok Nagar,Near Jagadamba Hospital Gandhi Nagar Hyderabad 10 Sri G.Wasim S/o.G.A Jaleel Rayachoti,Kadapa District 11 Sri G.Abdul Aleem, S/o.G.A Jaleel Bus Stand Road,Rayachoty Kadapa 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 in the nature of writ of Mandamus Certiorari to call for the records leading upto and inclusive of the order in G.O.Rt No.1217 Home(GeneralA1) Department dt.26- 06-2008 R/w in R.Dis No.C4/857/M/2007 dt.25-03-2008 of the 2nd respondent herein and quash the same as illegal,arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Cinematograph Act 1952 and The A.P Cinemas (Regulation) Rules 1970 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.V.BHATT Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 14088 of 2008 ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri S.V. Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri S. Sridhar, leaned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 to 11 with the permission of the Court though no vakalath is filed. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the first respondent dated 26-06-2008 in G.O.Rt.No.1217 Home (General A1) Department (for short G.O.Rt.No. 1217) rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the second respondent bearing reference R. Dis. C4/857/M/2007 dated 25-03-2008. The petitioner and the party respondents No. 5 to 11 are siblings and children of Abdul Zaleel and Smt. G. Mujibunnisa. According to the petitioner he has a current and operative right to possession and management of the property comprising two cinema theaters by name M/s. Sony Raj and M/s. Sydiya Picture Palace in Rayachoty, Kadapa District. The private respondents dispute this claim of the petitioner. Be that as it may. A license under the A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) for running the theater was granted in the name of the mother of the petitioner and the party respondents-Smt. Mujibunnisa valid up to 30-11-2007. However, the licensee – Smt. Mujibunnisa predeceased the license period, on 18-11-2007. The petitioner claims to have intimated the factum of Mujibunnisa’s death to the second respondent and also claims that in view of the provisions of Rule 5 (2)(a) of the A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970 (for short ‘the Rules’) has been running the theaters as the successor of Smt. Mujibunnisa. Disputing the petitioner’s claim as to having intimated Smt. Mujibunnisa’s death and therefore contesting the petitioner’s entitlement to run the theater under the provisions of Rule 5 (2)(a) of the Rules, the second respondent initiated proceedings and eventually passed the impugned order dated 25-03-2008 wherein it is inter alia held that there is no license currently in favour of any person enabling the running of the theaters. Rule 5 (2)(a) of the Rules enables a successor to the estate of a licensee to run the theater for a period of three months on condition that such person intimates the licensee’s death to the licensing authority. At any rate, in view of the death of the licensee Smt. Mujibunnisa on 18-11-2007 and in view of the fact that the period of three months has also elapsed and in further view of the fact that no fresh license has been issued or renewed in favour of any person thereafter, as on date, there is no license legitimizing the screening of films for running the theaters. Recording the above, the second respondent by the order impugned dated 25-03-2008 (the inelegance and inappropriateness of the language apart), in substance directed that the theaters be closed and further directed the Tahasildar, Raichoty “to seize both the theaters under proper panchanama and report compliance”. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner unsuccessfully preferred an appeal to the second respondent which was rejected by the order dated 26-06-2008 in G.O.Rt.No. 1217. Though Sri S.V. Bhatt, learned counsel urges a number of grounds on the merits of the petitioner’s entitlement to the custody and management of the theaters, these are not appropriately required to be considered in this writ petition. There are regnant disputes between the petitioner and the party respondents regarding the title and possession of the property of the two theaters. The competing claims in this behalf must be resolved in appropriate civil proceedings, either in the proceedings already initiated and pending between the parties or as may be instituted by any of the parties desirous of lodging a claim to the properties before appropriate fora. Proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is inappropriate. Faced with this jurisdictional problem, Sri S.V. Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order of the second respondent impliedly confirmed by the first respondent by the dismissal of the appeal, insofar as it directs the closure and seizure of the theaters is invalid and unsustainable as the order transgresses the contours of the power available under the Act and the Rules. The learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the learned counsel Sri S. Sridhar appearing for respondent Nos. 5 to 11 does not dispute the legal position regarding the incompetence of the second respondent to order closure or seizure of the theaters. The learned Government Pleader for Home would suggest that the direction of the second respondent to close the theater only means that no person is permitted to exhibit films in the theaters since there is no valid operative license in favour of any person. If so interpreted there is no infirmity in the order of the second respondent directing closure of the theaters. On the analysis above, the writ petition is allowed as follows: extent. The order of the second respondent dated 25- 03-2008 bearing reference R.Dis. C4/857/M/2007 insofar as it directs the third respondent to seize the two theaters M/s. Sony Raj and M/s. Sydiya Theatres in Raichoty, Kadapa District is declared incompetent and is quashed pro tanto. The order of the first respondent rejecting the appeal in toto is declared invalid to the extent it failed to determine the incompetence of the second respondent to direct the seizure of the theaters. Accepting the submissions of the learned Government Pleader for Home the direction in the second respondent’s order that ‘the theaters shall be closed’ is declared to mean that no films be exhibited as there is no current and operative license for such exhibition. The writ petition is disposed of as above. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 03-07-2008 Pvks/*