(1.) BY consent, the main writ petition has been argued. The writ petitioner is a cinema theatre. It appears that it was not making profit and therefore, a portion of the theatre premises was carved out and shopping complex was put up on the western side. The petitioner states that an application was made to the respondent, who is the licensing authority on 27. 05. 1999 for approval of the alteration. There was a delay in disposing of the said application. Therefore, a writ petition was filed in W. P. No. 12652 of 2001 for consideration of the application. On 10. 03. 2004, the above writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and pass orders. So far, the respondent has not passed orders. On 25. 05. 2004, the respondent served a notice on the petitioner, directing the petitioner to explain why the car parking facility is not adequate, and also regarding the floor-space-index on the four sides of the theatre and some suggestion was received with regard to the placement of the ticket counter.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, these suggestions were carried out and a revised plan was also submitted. Thereafter the respondent has issued the impugned order on 29. 10. 2004 in Na. Ka. No. C1/44429/99, directing the petitioner to demolish the ticket counter and to provide for necessary car parking outside the theatre premises. Against that, this writ petition has been filed.
(3.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Tahsildar, Sub Collector and the Superintending engineer, PWD have given a favourable report and yet the modifications in construction made by the petitioner have not been sanctioned. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the District Collector cannot depute other officials to file a report, contrary to the earlier favourable reports.