G. Abdul Sattar v. Appellate Authority, Government of Andhra Pradesh
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
1 The hon'ble Minister for Information, Public Relations, Cinematography, Tourism, culture and Museum Appellate Authority, Government of Andhra Pradesh. 2 The Joint Collector, Kadapa District, Kadapa. 3 The Thasildar, Rayachoty, Kadapa District. 4 Smt. B.s. Ghousiya begum S/o B.S. Mohammed Shajahan Door No. 1/709, Dwaraka nagar Colony, Kadapa. 5 Sri G.a. Kaleem S/o Late G.A. jaleel R/o 58/169, Kamsala Street Rayathoty, Kadapa District. 6 Sri G. Md. Yousuf, S/o Late g.A. Jaleel R/o 58/169, Kamsala Street Rayathoty, Kadapa District. 7 Sri. G. M. Sayeed, S/o Late g.A. jaleel R/o 58/169, Kamsala Street Rayathoty, Kadapa District. 8 Smt. J. Fouzia begum W@/o J. Md. Abid Near Radhika Talkies, Bellary, Karnataka State. 9 Smt. A. Aliya Begum w/o Shaik Kareem Shah Ali Door No. 1-1-1380/1, Ashok Nagar, Near jagadamba Hospital Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad. 10 Sri G. Wasim s/o G.A. jaleel Bus Stand Road, Rayachoty, Kadapa district. 11 Sri G. Abdul Aleem S/o g.A. Jaleel Bus Stand Road, Rayachoty, Kadapa district. .....RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.V.BHATT Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent Nos.4, 6 & 7: MR.S.SRIDHAR The Court made the following :
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not passing any order on the stay application filed along with the appeal presented on 01.04.2008 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Rules,
1970. The petitioner sought for suspension of operation of order, dated 25.03.2008 passed by respondent No.2. Heard Sri S.V.Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and Sri S.Sridhar, learned counsel representing respondent Nos.4, 6 and 7 and perused the record. By order, dated 25.03.2008, B-Form license of M/s.Sony Raj Theatre, Rayachoty was suspended on the ground that the death of Smt. G.Mujibunnisa, Wife of late G.Abdul Jaleel, proprietor of the said theatre was not intimated to the licensing authority. Sri S.V.Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said ground was wholly false apart from being specious and intended only to deny his client an opportunity of running the theatre, which, according to him, was constructed with his private funds. He further submitted that against the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.1 along with stay application and that so far, the stay application has not been disposed of.
He pleaded that pending appeal, the petitioner may be permitted to run the theatre. Sri S.Sridhar, learned counsel representing respondent Nos.4, 6 and 7, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner indulged in fabrication of documents and he is only one of the five brothers, who jointly own the theatre, and that he cannot be permitted to run the theatre. Having considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel, I am not inclined to go into the merits of the submissions made by the learned counsel, because the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending before respondent No.1, who is the appellate authority. Any findings given by this Court would have an adverse effect on the outcome of the appeal. I am, therefore, of the view that interests of justice would be met, if respondent No.1 is directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Operative part
Before such disposal, respondent No.1 shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and the respondents in the appeal. Having regard to the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.1 may not dispose of the appeal, despite stipulation of time limit by this Court, I make it clear that in the event of respondent No.1 not disposing of the appeal within the above mentioned time, order, dated 25.03.2008 passed by respondent No.2 shall automatically stands suspended till the disposal of the appeal. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.10333 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. 15th APRIL, 2008 C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Note: issue c.c. in one week. B/o
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of
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.