D SATYANARAYANA MURTY Vs. GOVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter arises under the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act), Section 6 of the Act excludes the application of all other analogous (provisions) to the construction or reconstruction of a building or the use, or the installation of any machinery in any place or building to be used exclusively for the holding of cinematography exhibitions. The Act directs that in every such case, an application for license or permission shall be made to the licensing authority under the Act in accordance with the Rules made in that behalf. Petitioner satisfied all the Rules and made a proper application to the competent authority which is the District Revenue Officer Guntur, for the grant of a permission to construct a cinema theater in T. S. Nos. 541 and 542 of Kothapeta, Guntur Town. That application was made(?) by the Distt. Revenue Officer on 30-9-74 under R. 9. By reason of these proceedings of the District Revenue Officer dated 30-9-74, the petitioner became entitled to construct a cinema theater in the aforesaid T.S. Nos, 541 and 542 Kothapeta, Guntur Town. But one of the limitations subject to which this permission is granted is contained m condition No. 13 which Prescribes that the theatre must be constructed within one year which means that the theatre ought To have been constructed before 30-9-15. For a variety Of reasons which have been enumerated in detail by the petitioner m his writ petition including civil, litigation at the instance of the Guntur Municipal Council about the same plot of land the petitioner, it was said, was unable to construct the theatre within that period The petitioner therefore, looked to the help of the Act and made an application to the District Revenue Officer, Guntur on 26-9-1975 asking for grant of extension of tune for the construction of the theatre. This application was made under R 17 (4) (c) which empowers the licensing authority is the Distinct Revenue Officer to grant further extension of time fixed in the original permission for the construction of the theatre. This application for extension of time was received by the District Revenue Officer on 27-9-75 but thereafter, he did neither speak nor act. He kept silence The petitioners application for extension must therefore, be taken to be pending with the District Revenue Officer.

(2.) The petitioner had, however, revised a show cause notice from the Government on 31-5-76 calling upon him to show cause why the permission granted to him should not be canceled for violation of condition No.13. (The Government really meant non-compliance with condition No. 13). The petitioner gave his explanation on 16-6-76 and the Government passed its order on 9-11-1977 canceling the permission granted to the petitioner on the ground that he had failed to comply with condition No. 13. It is this order which is challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) In this writ petition as I am considering only the question of jurisdiction of the Government to pass the impugned order. I decline to go into other matters raised and argued.