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 THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS.V AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NO: 2394 of 2008 Between: K. Sridhar Reddy, S/o. K. Narsi Reddy, R/o. H.No. 2-3-27/2, New Town, Mahabubnagar. ... PETITIONER AND 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4. The District Collector, Mahabubnagar, District, Mahabubnagar. 5. Mr. Pratap, S/o.Not Known to the Petitioner, Raichur Road, Mahabubnagar Town, Mahabubnagar. ...RESPONDENTS 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 issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records leading up to and inclusive of grant license to the three cinema theatres called Balaji, Tirumala and Venaktadri at Raichur Road, Mahabubnagar Town, Mahabubnagar District to see that as to how the District Collector had satisfied himself about the existence of the safety measures in the theatre complex and if this Hon'ble Court were to come to a conclusion that the District Collector has transgressed his Authority while grant of the license and did not observe safety norms, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to cancel the license granted to the three cinema theatres called Balaji, Tirumala and Venkatadri at Raichur Road, Mahabubnagar Town, Mahabubnagar District. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.SHARAT KUMAR Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent No.2: GP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent No.3: GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION Counsel for Respondent No.5: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: O R D E R: (per Hon’ble Shri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice) 1. By filing this public interest litigation, the petitioner has ventilated certain grievances with regard to safety measures, which ought to have been taken in the theatre complex referred to in the petition. 2. According to the petitioner, before issuance of relevant licences to the theatre complex, care should have been taken with regard to safety measures. 3. In pursuance of the notice issued by this Court, respondent No.4 has filed counter-affidavit giving details with regard to the actions, which are required to be taken by the respondent authorities. 4. In view of the fact that the concerned authorities are looking into the grievances ventilated in the petition, in our opinion, this petition would not survive. We are sure that the respondent authorities shall take due care to see that proper safety measures are taken for the theatre complex. 5. In view of the above development, the petition stands disposed of. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ August 12, 2008 VILAL.V AFZULPURKAR, J svs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}