IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.6317 of 2001 Between: M/s Mini Bhavani Theatre, Rep. by its Prop : M.Sreenivas Kazipet, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Joint Collector & Licensing Authority, Warangal, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Proceedings of the respondent herein in No.C3/404/2001, dt. 14.3.2001 as illegal, null, void and arbitrary and against the Rules. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.6317 of 2001 ORDER: Petitioner questions the order of the respondent, dated 14-03-2001 in imposing penalty of Rs.9,000/- under Section 10 (2-A) of A.P.Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1955. The penalty was imposed on the ground that the petitioner enhanced rates of admission for Balcony class from Rs.12/- to Rs.20/-, pursuant to the interim direction of this court, dated 22-12-2000 in W.P.M.P.No.32455 of 2000 in W.P.No.25448 of 2000 directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to run Cinema as per the application of the petitioner, dated 07-12-000. But, the petitioner, without obtaining permission from the respondent enhanced the rates contrary to the directions of this court and therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay penalty of Rs.9,000/-. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made an application on 07-12-2000 requesting the respondent to permit it to enhance rates temporarily on some newly released pictures from Rs.12/- to Rs.20/- for admission to the balcony class. As the said representation has not been considered and disposed of, the petitioner filed W.P.No.25448 of 2000 before this court and this court granted interim order directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to run the theatre as per the application of the petitioner, dated 07-12-2000. When there is a clear direction from this court directing the respondent to permit the petitioner to run theatre as per its application, dated 07-12-2000, it is the duty of the respondent to permit the petitioner to enhance the rate of admission for balcony class from Rs.12/- to Rs.20/- as per the application of the petitioner, dated 07-12-2000. Merely because such permission was not endorsed in B-Form licence, it cannot be said that the petitioner violated the terms and conditions of B-Form licence. It is further stated that there is no dispute with regard to payment of tax on the enhanced rate of admission for Balcony Class and as per the interim direction of this court, it cannot be said that it is in violation of terms and conditions of B-Form licence. Had the respondent prevented from enhancing the rate of admission for Balcony class, it would have been a contumacious action of the order of this court. It is stated that the action of the court is also the action of the State and, therefore, when this court directed the respondent to permit the petitioner to run the Theatre as per its application, dated 07-12-2000, the action of the petitioner in enhancing rates as per its application temporarily for a period from 11-01-2001 to 31-01-2001 cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the action of the respondent in imposing penalty is contrary to the interim order of this court. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that if the respondent already collected the penalty amount, the petitioner will not claim the penalty amount. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 14-03-2001. However, it is made clear that if the penalty amount was already collected, the respondent need not refund the same to the petitioner. But, if the penalty amount is not collected, the respondent is directed not to collect the same. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 02-04-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ANURADHA}