K SIDDAPPA Vs. GCVT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein belongs to a backward caste. He is a handicapped person having lost one leg. Since it is difficult for him to find suitable employment to support his family, he filed an application on 30th May, 1986 before the District Collector (2nd Respondent) for grant of licence for public exhibition of films on video on commercial basis at H. No. 4140, Jagatgirigutta, Kutbullapur Mandal. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner had made huge investment to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- by arranging for auditorium etc. As the petitioner's application is in order, the 2nd respondent, as required under Rule 2 (b) of Appendix 9 of the A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules', forwarded copies of the application, one each to the Electrical Inspecter and the Health Officer asking for their reports and certificates. The Electrical Inspector submitted his report on 27-2-1987 to the 2nd respondent along with a certificate for issue of licence. The District Medical and Health Officer on 6 1-I9S7 sent a report recommending the issue of licence and certifying that the premise? H. No. 4240, Jagatgirigutla, is sanitarily fit for the purpose of exhibition of video films. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent, in his proceedings, dated 12-3-1987, rejected the request for grant of licence in public interest.

(2.) Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Government. Pending the appeal, a report was called for from the 2nd respondent on 30-11-87 to furnish the details of public interest referred to in the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 12-3-1987. In pursuance of the said order, the 2nd respondent called for a report from the Superintendent of Police. The Superintendent of Police submitted a report on 6-1-88 stating that the proposed place is not suitable for screening of pictures on video as it is congested and Jagatgrigutta is highly sensitive politically and communally, that large number of factory workers are residing in the area indulging in unlawful activities frequently, and that if the licence is granted, it will certainly lead to breach of peace in the area. Basing on the said report, the 1st responddent passed the impugned order, G.O.Rt. 690, Home, (General-A) Department, dt. 31-3-1988 wherein it was held that the licensing authority is fully justified in rejecting the application for No Objection Certificate in the public interes' on grounds of law and order (Public Safety) which is covered by Rule 2 (c) of Appendix 2 of the Rules.

(3.) In this writ petition, the aforesaid G.O. is challenged mainly on the ground that the petitioner has complied with all the requirements as laid down in Rule 2 of Appendix 9 of the Rules and the Health authorities as well as the Electrical Inspector issued certificates recommending for grant of licence. At the time when the 2nd respondent rejected the application in the public interest, he did not call for any report from the Superintendent of Police and he has not stated in the order the reasons for coming to the conclusion that the granting of licence is not in public interest. It is only when the 1st respondent called for the details of public interest from the 2nd respondent that the 2nd respondent obtained a report from the Superintendent of Police stating that there is likelihood ot law and order problem. Therefore, to the time when the original authority rejected the grant of licence, it was not having before it any report from the Superintendent of Police stating that there is likely to be law and order problem. It is nextly contended that (once the requirement of Rule 2 of Appendix 9 of the Rules is complied with, the authorities have no power to reject the application for grant of licence on considerations other than those mentioned in Rule 2 of Appendix 9]. It is also contended that the 1st respondent has not applied his mind to the case. There is no Rule 2 (c) ot Appendix 2 of the Rules. Rule 2 of Appendix 2 is as follows :