S SUBBA RAO Vs. PULI VEERAGHAVAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the proprietor of the permanent theater. Sri Seetharama Talkies, Kuchipudi, Divi Taluk, Krishna District, and he is having a valid license to exhibit pictures in that theatre. While so, the District Revenue Officer, granted permission on 30/03/1974 to the first respondent to construct a temporary theatre. Under Rule 7 (2) (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act 1955 (herein referred to as the rules and the Act, respectively) the distance between a permanent theatre and a temporary theatre should be one kilometer. But in this case, the distance between the petitioners theatre and the proposed site for construction of a temporary theatre by the first respondent, was only 400 meters. So, the petitioner filed writ petition No. 5828 of 1974 in this court challenging the permission given by the District Revenue Officer in favour of the first respondent. That writ petition was allowed by this court on 3-2-1975 and the permission granted in favour of the first respondent was quashed. Against that judgment the first respondent preferred Writ Appeal No 98 of 1975 and it was also dismissed by this Court on 7/02/1975. After the disposal of the writ petition, the Tahsildar, Avanigadda issued proceedings on 4-2-1975 asking the petitioner (first respondent) to stop exhibition of shows. Against that order the first respondent preferred an appeal to the Government on 19/03/1985. But, it transpires that meanwhile the Government issued G.O.Rt. 154 dated 27-1-1975 granting exemption in favour of the first respondent from the provisions of Rule 7 (2) (c) of the Rules, relating to distance. On 30-7-1975 the Government issued a notice to the petitioner stating that the question to grant of exemption in favour of the first respondent from the operation of Rule 7 (2) (c) of the Rules relating to distance between a temporary cinema and a permanent cinema, was under consideration of the Government and the petitioner was requested to send his representation, if any, within thirty days from the date of receipt of that notice. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted a representation on 5-8-1975 to the Government, requesting them to furnish him with a copy of the appeal petition and the other connected papers pertaining to the proposed grant of exemption form the distance rule. On 16-8-75 the Government furnished the petitioner with a copy of the appeal petition, but stated that they do not consider it necessary to furnish any other papers. The petitioner, then wrote to the Government on 11-1-1975 (sic) to furnish him with copies of the petition if any, filed by the first respondent for exemption and also other papers on the basis of which the Government proposed to grant exemption. The Government gave a reply on 27-9-1975 stating that inasmuch as the copy of the appeal petition filed by the first respondent was furnished to the petitioner, his further request for furnishing other papers was vague and it could not be complied with. It is at that stage, the petitioner has filed this writ petition questioning the notice dated 30-7-75 issued by the Government.

(2.) Sri P. Shiv Shanker, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised before me two contentions. First, the appeal filed by the first respondent on 19-3-1975 before the Government against the order of the Tahsildar is barred by limitation, for it was not filed within thirty days, and there is no provision in the Act, to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the entertainment of the appeal by the Government is bad. Secondly, the notice issued by the Government to the petitioner on 30-7-195 to show cause as to why exemption should not be granted in favour of the first respondent from the operation of Rule 7 (2) (c) of the Rules, relating to distance, is bad, finally because the Government have no power to issue such a notice suo motu under Section 12 of the Act and secondly, because the said notice does not mention any grounds or particulars on the basis of which the Government proposed to grant exemption to the first respondent, so as to enable the petitioner to submit his explanation.

(3.) In this writ petition, it is not necessary for me to decide the first contention, for, as I see, the Government have not given any notice to the petitioner with regard to the appeal filed by the first respondent against the order of the Tahsildar. That appeal is still pending before the Government. The petitioner compensation take objection before the Government that the appeal is barred by limitation. Therefore, I do not propose to decide that question and leave it open.