Smt. T.Paramathama v. District at Kakinada
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that if it is
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Cause title
Smt. T.Paramathama W/o Atchuta Rao (Licensee and Managing Partner of Sri Lalitha Theatre, Amalapuram) R/o 40-26-24, Labbipeta, Vijayawada, Krishna District AND ..... PETITIONER
1 The Joint Collector & Licensing Authority, East Godavari District at Kakinada 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Amalapuram, East Godavari District 3 The Station House Officer, Town P.S. Amalapuram East Godavari District 4 Smt. D. Anantha Lakshmi W/o D. Nageswara Rao Parter: Sri Lalitha Theatre, Amalapuram, R/o Amalapuram, East Godavari District .....RESPONDENTS
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 inaction of the Respondents 1 to 3 herein in not taking any action for closure of Sri Lalitha Theatre, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, beyond 31-3-2005 as illegal, null, void and arbitrary. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR HOME This Court at the stage of admission made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in not taking any action for closure of Sri Lalitha Theatre, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, beyond 31.03.2005 i.e., the date of expiry of licence of the said theatre, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home for the respondents. The petitioner is the licencee and Managing partner of the said theatre. The grievance of the petitioner is that there are some internal disputes between him and the fourth respondent about the running of the said theatre. While so, even after the expiry of the licence of the said theatre on 31.03.2005, the fourth respondent has been continuing the screening of films. Therefore, he submitted a representation to the respondents 1 to 3 herein on 01.04.2005 to stop the screening of the films in the theatre, but the same was not considered. Hence, the present writ petition. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the licence period for running the said theatre has come to an end on
Operative part
31.03.2005, despite which the fourth respondent has been illegally continuing the activity of screening the films. Further, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner apprehends that for any reason if any irregularity is found while screening the films, which itself is per se illegal, he will also be held responsible as the Managing partner of the said theatre. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents 1 to 3 to take steps to close down the theatre but the same was not heeded to. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that this is a matter to be verified by the respondents 1 to 3 as regards the subsistence of the licence and screening of the films by the fourth respondent, therefore suffice it to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that if it is found that the licence of the fourth respondent is not still in subsistence or is any irregularity committed by him, whatsoever, the respondents 1 to 3 shall initiate appropriate action strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. _________________ D.S.R.VARMA, J
11.04.2005 DR To 1 The Joint Collector & Licensing Authority, East Godavari District at Kakinada 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Amalapuram, East Godavari District 3 The Station House Officer, Town P.S. Amalapuram East Godavari District 4 2 CCs to Government Pleader for Home, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT) 5 2 CD copies
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that if it is
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.