IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 25558 of 2001 Between: 1 Raj Picture Palace Rep.by its Prop: G.Ramakrishnareddy Nandyal, Kurnool District. 2 Pratap Picture Palace Rep.by its Managing Partner: V.Pratapreddy Nandyal, Kurnool District. 3 Ramanath Talkies Rep.by its Prop: V.Pratap Reddy Nandyal, Kurnool District. 4 Sri Venkatesware A/C. Theatre Rep.by its Prop: D.Lakshmi Reddy Nandyal, Kurnool District. 5 Khaleel Picture Palace Rep.by its Managing Partner: NMD, Farooq Nandyal, Kurnool District. 6 Sri Panduranga Picture Palace Rep.by its Managing Partner: Sri. D.Subba Reddy Koilakuntla, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Films Division, Ministry of Information and Brodcasting, Govt.of India, Rep.by its Branch Manager, Koti at Sultanbazar, Hyderabad. 2 Jt.Collector, Kurnool, Kurnool Dist. 3 Revenue Divisional Nandyal, Kurnool 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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, (a) declaring that condition No.41 and 42 of Form 'B' licence of the petitioner is illegal, null and void and unconstitutional and that the 2nd and 3rd respondents can not insist for production of No.Objection certificate for the purpose of renewal of 'B' form licence under A.P.Cinema(Regulation) Rules 1970. (b) and further declare that the 1st respondent is not entitled to demand and collect the weekly rentals from November,1995 onwards by coercive methods of seeking for cancellation of licence by the 2nd and 3rd respondents. (c) to ward the costs to the petitioner, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.PANDURANGA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2 and 3: MR.V.RAVINDER Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.A.Rajasekhar Reddy The Court made the following : ORDER: When the matter was called on 28.03.2008, none appeared and therefore, it was posted to 04.04.2008 under the caption “for dismissal”. Even today also none appeared. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for default. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. Date:04.04.2008 Ccm To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KMR}