A.Osman Ali v. The District Collector & District Magistrate, Kurnool District

This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondents 3 and 4 in sealing the video theatre, namely, Sony Video Theatre situated at Atmakur town and Mandal, Kurnool district on 27.2.2008 as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction and declaration that the said action of respondents 3 and 4 is without jurisdiction. Heard Sri K.Venaktesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. In his affidavit, the petitioner averred that his licence to run video theatre which was being renewed from time to time was valid up to 8.9.2007, that he made an application for renewal three months before the expiry of licence in June, 2007 in Form-J of A.P.Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1970 alongwith the required fee and that the authorities such as the Revenue Divisional Officer, Executive Engineer, R & B, Nandyala and District Medical Officer, Kurnool granted no objection, but his application for renewal is pending before respondents 1 and 2.

The petitioner further averred that under the relevant Rules, the application for renewal shall be disposed of within 15 days from the date of receipt of reports by the authorities concerned. He further averred that on 22.2.2008 respondent No.5 inspected the premises where the petitioner was running the video theatre, on the allegation of exhibiting an obscene video film, seized the video CD and DVD player from respondent No.5 and registered crime No.17 of 2008 for the offence under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and the Project Director. The petitioner further alleged that on 27.2.2008 at about 4.30 P.M., respondent No.4 sealed the video theatre without any notice. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.4 has no power under the provisions of Cinematograph Act, 1952 to seal the place where the films are exhibited. Section 7A, which deals with power of seizure reads as under: “7A.Power of seizure - (1)Where a film in respect of which no certificate has been granted under this Act is exhibited, or a film certified as suitable for public exhibition restricted to adults is exhibited to any person who is not an adult or a film is exhibited in contravention of any of the other provisions contained in this Act or of any order made by the Central Government, the Tribunal or the Board in the exercise of any of the powers conferred on it, any police officer may, enter any place in which he has reason to believe that the film has been or is being or is likely to be exhibited, search it and seize the film.

(2) All searches under this Act shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relating to searches.” No counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home is unable to point out any provision of law under which the respondents have power of sealing the place where the films are exhibited. Therefore, respondents 3 and 4 are directed to open the seal of the theatre belonging to the petitioner and hand over possession to him. It is however, made clear that without getting his licence renewed, the petitioner shall not operate the video theatre and the respondents are given liberty to interfere if the petitioner runs the theatre without any such renewal or exhibits obscene films. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.6110 of 2008 filed by the petitioner seeking interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. Date:31.03.2008 ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J