Sri Prasad Picture Palace, Tanuku, West Godavari District v. The Joint Collector & Licencing Authority (Cinemas)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
writ petition is allowed declaring the seizure of the theatre as illegal
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. When the matter is taken up, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the subject matter of the writ petition is covered to be allowed in view of the judgment rendered by this court in the case P. Kullaiah Swamy v.…
- Para 55. In view of the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, which are not controverted by the respondents by way of a counter affidavit, and in view of the judgment referred above, the writ petition is allowed declaring the…
Judgment
Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K. Durga Prasad Counsel for respondents: Govt. Pleader, Home … Respondents Order: Petitioner, a cinema theatre, represented by its partner and leaseholder, has filed this writ petition seeking Mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in seizing the theatre by putting seal to the cabin and the consequential notice dated 16-06-2004 as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioner is an exhibitor of films and a licencee under the provisions of Cinematograph Act, 1952. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is stated that on 15-06-2004, respondents inspected the petitioner-theatre and though no uncensored films were being exhibited, by making false allegations, the theatre was seized by sealing the cabin and consequent to the seizure, notice dated 16-06- 2004 is issued.
This court, at the stage of admission, by order dated 07-07-2004, issued directions to the respondents to permit the petitioner to run the theatre by removing the seal. The said order has been in force since then and though the writ petition is of the year 2004, no counter affidavit is filed.
When the matter is taken up, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the subject matter of the writ petition is covered to be allowed in view of the judgment rendered by this court in the case P. Kullaiah Swamy v. Sub-Inspector of Police, Jammalamadugu Police Station, Cuddapah and another[1]. In the said judgment, a learned single Judge of this court has held that when there is violation of licence conditions, it is open to the licencing authority to cancel or suspend B-Form licence, but, on the said allegations, when the licence is in force, there is no power for seizure of the theatre itself.
Operative part
In view of the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, which are not controverted by the respondents by way of a counter affidavit, and in view of the judgment referred above, the writ petition is allowed declaring the seizure of the theatre as illegal. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner-theatre has violated any of the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, or conditions of licence, this order will not preclude the respondents in taking steps in accordance with law. No order as to costs. __________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J November 18, 2009 MRR [1] 2003 (1) ALD (Crl.) 676 (AP)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: writ petition is allowed declaring the seizure of the theatre as illegal
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Cinematograph Act, 1952.
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.