The High Court · 2025

Petition under section r s 1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the operation of the Impugned order dated 24.09.2025 in wp No.29214 of 2025 staying the impugned memo, i.e., lVlemo No 11922lGeneral Alt2o2b, Dated 19.09.2025 issued by the Respondent No 1 Home Dept. I I I I I l i I I I I I I i l I i i I 1 I I I I I I I I I I - Counsel for the Appellant: SRI AVINASH DESAI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI SIRGAPOOR SAHIL REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No'1: SRI VIJAY GOPAL C"un."f for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: JUDGMENT : .!i AAqlF'. .rl, -,. '' '..lir ' - i I i ! ; l I I I I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR STIAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO .1()94 oF 2025 {UD_qIEENT: (per ttLe r-ron,bte Srt ,lustice Abhirtand KuiLClr Shauih) Aggrieved by the tnlerlocuton. order, dated '24.09.2A25 passed in W.p.No,29274 ol 2O2Sby the 1earned Single Judge, the present Writ Appeal is fiied.

2. Fleard Sri Avinash learned Senior counsel Desai, representing Sri S. Sahil Reddy, learned counsel appearing lbr the appellant; the leeirned Governmen L pleader for Hornc appearing for respondent Nos.2 tt 3 and Sri Vgay Gopal, learned counsel for respondent No. 1.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant hacl contended that the appellant is a producer and it had produced a film in the name and style as ,,OG,, and it had invested huge amounts in producing the said movie. Since it is a hrgh buclget movie, the appeliant had submir.red a representation to the State Government on lT.CI.2O2S, seeking to co.llect higher ticket raics than what has been prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.No.120, dated 2 l.12.2021anrl the 2 'w .l State Government uide merno dated 19 09'2025 rvas pleased to grant exemption under Sectior:r 12 of Telangana Cinemas (Regulation) Act, I955 (for short' 'the Act') and permrtte d lhe appellant to enhance the ticket rates from the date of relcase I e , from 24.Og '2025 till 04 ' 10 202 5 and the mr)t,ie tl,as also relcased 1'esterday t e ,21'O9'2025' However, respondent No.1/u'rit petitioner had approached this Cor-Lrt bv filir-rg W.P.No.292 \4 of 2025, challenging the memo dated 19.Og.2025 issued in favour of the appellant and the leartred Single Judge uid-e order, dated 24'O9 '2025 have suspended the said Memo' r'vithout issuing an1' notice or hea-ring the appellant and d'irected the matter to be listed on 09.10.2025. Learned Senior Counsel hacl further contended that 4, the exemption granted b5r the State Government in favour of the appellant is onll' up to 04' lo '2025 al-rd rvrit petition was directed to be listed on 09.IO -2025 If the Writ Petition was taken up on O9.10.2025, the object of issuing memo' dated 19.09.2025 itself r,r'ou1d be defeated Learned Senior Counsel had further contended that the learned Single Judge could not ha','e suspended the Memo, dated w-w ,., I J

19.09.2025, without issurng notice and hearing the appellant. To this proposition, the rearne<1 Senior counser lor the appellant had relied upon the judgment rendered b1. the Honourable Supreme Court in Raja Khan vs. Uttar Pradesh Sunni Centrq.l Waqf Board and anothert, wherein, the Honourable Supreme Court had held that if ex parte interim orders are granted by the learned Single Judge at the admission stage that too, without hearing the affected parues. r,irtuajlv it amounts to allou,rng the Writ Petition and such practice \\ras deprecated by the Honourable Supreme Court.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant had further relied upon the judgment rendered by the Honourabre Supreme Court in State of Ilttar prad.esh a. Sandeep Kumqr Bo.lmiki and others2, r,l.herein the Honourabie Supreme Court had held thar if the High Court grant stay the terminatton orders at the admission stage, it amounts to virtuaily allowing the Writ petition at the admission stage and was pleased to set aside the ex parte order. Admittedly, in the instant case, the impugned memo dated '(zort)zsccu+t (2009) l7 scc 55j i 4 lg.Og.2025 issued in fan'our of the appe llant is suspended by the learned Single Judge at the admissron stage that too, without issuing notice and giving opportunity to the appellant. Therefore, the order ol the learned Single Judge in suspcnding the Memo, dated lg 'Og 2025 ' at the admission stage, that too, wlthout giving an opportunity to the appellant n'ould amount to virtualh' allowing the subject Writ Petition. Learnecl Senior Counsel had further contended that the Memo, dated 19 09 2025' rvhich r'vas issuedbrtl.reStateGor'ernmetltit-tfarouroftl-reappellant is valid onll up to 04.10.2025 No opportunity is given to the appellant to contest the case ll the subject Writ Petition is taken up for hearing or-r 09 10 2025' the object of filing the subject Writ Petition by the respondent No.l/writ petrtioner u'oulcl be achieved, as the memo' dated 19.09.2025 is valid onh up to 04 lO'2O25' Learned Senior Counsel appearing lor the appellant 6. had contended that the Memo, dated 19 09 2025' was issued strictly in accordance u'ith Section 12 of the Act and the State Government $rouid also be benefited as it u'ould be collectrng enhanced GST rate on each of the film ticket' _.@w,, ',; ;/ ' /4. f, 'Iherefore, the learned Single Judge at least ought to have heard the learned Government pleader before passing the impugned order, dated 24.eg.2025, whereby, the learned Single Judge has suspended the Memo, datecl 19.Og.2025. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed rn the Writ Appeal by settrng aside the inrerlocutory order, dated 24.Og.2025 passed in W.p.No.29214 ol. 2025 by the learned Single Judge.

7. Learned Government pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.2 & 3 had contended that on a representation submitted by the appeliant, the State Government has examined the same and only after being satisfied that it is lalling within the parameters of Section 12 of the Act, the State Government has granted exemption in favour of the appellant uid.e Memo, dated 19.09.2025. The learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate this fact and mechanically suspended the Memo, dated i9.09.2025, at the admission stage. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeat.

8. Learned counsel appea-rlng for respondent No. 1/writ petitioner hacl contended that the policy of the State .-III \'-"-€r lr.;:lli;.; a!. 1 -. 6 Government is enunciated in Government Orders and a Government Memo cannot nullify the polic1. of the State Government. Further, no reasons \vere assigned in the Memo. dated 19.09.2025, as to ri hl' exemptlon is granted under Section 6 of thc Act. as Sectior-r 12 of the Act contemplates that the State Governmetlt shorrld be of the opinion that reasonable grounds exist, so as to permit the producers to get exempLion. Adl-nitted l) ' 11o reasons \\'ere assignecl by the State Clovernment in the Mcn-ro' dated

19.O9.2O2-r. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No 1/writ g. petitioner had further cor-rtended that the Stale Government is selectivelv granting exemption to selechve producers and the same is not being extended to some of the producers. Respondent No 1/r'vrit petitroner is one of the cine goers, who is affected u'ith the action of the State Government in issuing the Memo, dated 19'O9'2025' wherein the State Government has permitted the appellant to enhance the movie ticket rates, which is detrimental to the cine goers. Therefore, the learned Single 'Judge ivas justified in suspending the Memo, dated 1 9 'O9 2025' / -r l , 7 10' This court, having considered the rivar submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that the valiclity of the Memo, dated 19.09.2025, issued by the State Government granting exemption under Section l2 of the Act is only till 04.10.2025. The learned Single Judge vide impugned order, dated 24.Og .2025, has suspended the Memo, dated 19.O9.2025, w,hich r.r,as issued b.r. the State Government in favour of the appellant, and listeti the matter on 09.10.2025. Tomorrou, i.e. 26.09.2025 is the only working day before Dussehra Vacation, 2025. If the subject Writ Petition is heard after 04. 10.2025, the purpose of filing the Writ Petition by respondentNo.l /w.rit petitioner would be achieved. Therefore, this Court is of the vieu. that ends of justice would be met, if the matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge to hear the subject writ petition on 26.09.2025. After hearing the appellant as well as the writ petitioner and the learned Government pleader, the learned Single Judge is requested to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observatrons made by this Court. As the learned Single Judge has suspended the Memo, dated 19.Og.2O2S, , I \ \-.+.*.,-44- '.1 ;f ': ':ir.L",a!tir: r ? 8 'a.:.. - without hearing the appellant, the impugned order, dated

24.O9.2025 in W.P.No.292ll of 2025 of the learned Single Judge is kept in abeyance, till the learned Single Judge passes appropriate orders ot-t 26.O9.2025

11. With the above obserr ations/directions. the Writ Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs As a sequel, miscellaneous applicattons pending if an,v, shall stand closed \ //TRUE COPYI/ SD/- V.KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR G- SECTION OFFICER 1 i i To 1 2 !) E 6 7 8 PSK. PSK Jhe Section Officer, Writ Non-service Section, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. The Section Officer, Posting Section, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana - 500022. ' The Hyderabad city Police cinemas Licensing Authority o/o commissioner of Polrce I ower A, Commissioner of police, ICCC Building' Road No. i 2. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 50034 One CC to SRt SIRGAPOOR SAHTL REDDy, Advocate tOpUCI One CC to SRI VIJAY GOPAL, Advocate tOpUCl Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court fbr the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies ry. CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED:2510912025 NOTE: WP.No.29214 of 2024 dated 24.09.2 25 of the learned Sin le iudqe is kept in abevance. till the I d Sinqle Judqe passes appropriate orders on 26.09.2025 ea rne JUDGMENT WA.No.1094 of 2025 r.\t- r. I ?. c^ t7- (J I I I I .s &\ (\ \r{\, .i {l DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS \ ;t .i.i:r,r, ,r,, '.1;I 5 t \f 7