SHIVA SHANKARA THEATRE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a partnership concern. It intended to construct a cinema theatre in a site of 1742 sq. yards in Sy.No.224/1 and 2, Saidabad, Hyderabad. As required under the A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 (for short the "Cinemas Regulation") and the A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970 (for short "the Rules"), the petitioner submitted an application on 31-10-2003, to the respondent, Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad. On receipt of the same, the respondent issued a memo dated 11-11-2003, stating that, No Objection Certificate (for short "NOC"), for construction of the theatre, cannot be issued, on account of absence of proof of ownership over the property. 60 days time was given for the petitioner to comply with the requirement. Thereafter, the petitioner obtained a registered sale deed dated 29-12-2003, in respect of the property, and filed it before the respondent.

(2.) The application of the petitioner was processed and remarks were called for, from the various authorities. Correspondence ensued between various authorities and the petitioner in this regard. Ultimately, through memo dated 25-11-2004, the respondent informed the petitioner that submission of common application for NOC under Rule 8-A, and for permission to construct the theatre, under Rule 9-A of the Rules, is impermissible. Exception was taken for the act of the petitioner, in proceeding with the construction. The petitioner was directed to make fresh applications for NOC, under Rule 8-A, and to seek construction permission under Rule 9-A, thereafter. The petitioner submitted representations dated 1-12-2004 and 2-12-2004, narrating the developments that have taken place ever since the submission of the application on 31-10-2003, and requested the respondent to consider the feasibility of according screening permission, on completion of the construction. Respondent issued memo dated 30-12-2004, reiterating the earlier stand and directing the petitioner not to proceed with the construction. The petitioner challenges the two memos dated 25-11-2004 and 30-12-2004, issued by the respondent.

(3.) Petitioner contends that the same Form is prescribed under the Rules for submission of applications under Rules 8-A and 9-A, having regard to the similarity of the considerations, and that the respondent himself processed the same, up to a very advanced stage. It is also their case that the various authorities prescribed under the Rules, have intimated their no objection for the construction of the theatre and the minor objections raised by some of the authorities have been complied with. It is urged that the construction of the theatre is almost complete, and that it conforms to the requirement under the Rules. It is alleged that the construction is at the stage of finishing works, and no useful purpose would be served, if the applications are required to be made afresh.