YARAKARAJU SARRAJU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application by the petitioner, a proprietor of a permanent cinema Hall under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, gives rise to a short question of law, viz, whether the State Government is competent to direct a licensing authority under the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, to issue a temporary licence to an applicant pending decision on his appeal against an order of such 1'censing authority refusing renewal of his licence.

(2.) The material facts which are not in dispute and which lie in short compass may be stated. The 3rd respondent was running a temporary cinema by name Sri Venkateswara Touring Talkies at Kavithivada village, Bhimavaram taluk in the district of West Godavari under a licence issued by the concerned licensing authority, ie.the District Collector, West Godavari, which was valid till the end of October, 1974. The petitioner constructed a permanent cinema hall called Ramakrishna Theatre in the same village and obtained a licence in Form 'B' from the same licensing authority, on 21-6-1974. Before the expiry of the period of his licence, the 3rd respondent applied to the District Collector, West Godavari, on October, 15,1974 for renewal of his licence beyond 31-10-1974. The Collector, by his proceedings dated 18-10-1974, refused to grant renewal of the 3rd respondent on the ground that the distance between the temporary cinema and the permanent cinetna of the petitioner is not more than 800 merres as required under the relevant rules. Aggrieved by the decision of the licensing authority, the 3rd respondent preferred an appeal to the State Government under section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), The appellant before the Government Bought for a direction to the licensing authority to allow him to run the cinema on a temporary basis till the disposal of his appeal and also sought for relaxation of the relevant rule relating to distance in his favour, If necessary. The State Government by its memo dated 31-10-74 directed the licensing authority to permit the 3rd respondent to run his temporary cinema for a period of 2 months beyond 31-10-1974. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for the quashing of the aforesaid order of the State Government.

(3.) Mr. Babul Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the State Government has no jurisdiction or competency to pass the impugned order or direction and that the State Government is only empowered to stay the execution cf any decision of the licensing authority. This claim of the petitioner is resisted by the learned Government Pleader for Police and Mr. A Suryanarayana Murty, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, contending inter alia that the State Government has ample power and jurisdiction under section 5(2) read with section 7 of the Act to pass the Impugned order and the writ petition itself is not maintainable.