R SIMHADRINAIDU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a public interest litigation. The petitioner is the President Mandal Praja Farishad of Devarapalli Mandal in Visakhapatnam District. He is questioning G.O.Rt No.807, dated 22-3-1990 issued by the Government permitting the third respondent to run morning and matinee shows in Sri Lalitha Touring Talkies, Devarapalli which is situated 60 yards away from the Junior College.

(2.) The third respondent made an application to construct a Touring Talkies in Survey No.151/2 of Devarapalli village to the Licensing Authority, Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam. The second respondent granted permission to construct Touring Talkies on 27-9-1984 subject to the condition that the third respondent should not exhibit morning and matinee shows as the Junior College is situated within 60 yards from the proposed construction. The third respondent has accordingly, constructed the Talkies and obtained 'D' form licence permitting exhibition of night shows only. In the licence granted by the second respondent, it is made dear that the third respondent shall not exhibit morning or matinee shows. Eversince, the third respondent has been exhibiting night shows only. While so, he made an application to the second respondent seeking permission to exhibit morning and matinee shows in the Talkies. The second respondent had conducted enquiry and recorded the statements of the petitioner and the college authorities. He, accordingly, rejected the request of the third respondent by his proceedings da ted 24-1-1989. Aggrieved by the said order, the third respondent preferred an appeal before the Government The first respondent allowed the appeal and permitted the third respondent to exhibit morning and matinee shows. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) The third respondent in his counter affidavit states that the permission sought for to construct a Touring Talkies in S.No.151/2 at Devarapalli was rejected in the first instance on the ground that the proposed Talkies is within a distance of 60 yards away from the Government Junior College. The Principal of the College has given no objection certificate. Therefore, there is no justification for the second respondent in imposing the condition not to exhibit films during day time. Therefore, imposition of such restriction by the Joint Collector requiring the petitioner not to exhibit film in Touring Talkies during day time is arbitrary, illegal and void. The petitioner has no locus standi to question the exhibition of films. As the Government has rightly interfered with the order of the Joint Collector imposing illegal restriction in 'D' form licence, the writ petition is not maintainable.