JYOTHI THEATRE Vs. JOINT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.Sudeep Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.

(2.) This Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings No.C1/CN/5091/2006-1, dtd. 13/4/2007, issued by respondent No.1 in exercise of power under Sec. 10 (2) of the A.P. Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act, 1955'), cancelling the No Objection Certificate (NOC), dtd. 20/6/1994, the construction permission, dtd. 26/10/1994 and Form-B licence, dtd. 25/1/1997, issued in favour of the petitioner-theatre.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner, represented by its Managing Partner, that he purchased the land to an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas in Survey No.284/3, situated at Bollaram Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District, under a registered Sale Deed, dtd. 12/1/1994, and thereafter, the petitioner approached respondent No.1 seeking permission for construction of cinema theatre and for grant of Form-B licence and accordingly, the same were granted by respondent No.1. He further submitted that when construction of cinema theatre was commenced, at that stage, respondent No.1 issued a show-cause notice, dtd. 29/10/2006, to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has suppressed the fact of cancellation of Supplementary Sethwar, through which the petitioner is claiming title and whereby the subject property was declared as a Government property and therefore invoked the provisions of Sec. 10 (2) of the Act, 1955, proposing to revoke the licence and construction permission that were granted in favour of the petitioner. In response to the said show-cause notice, the petitioner has submitted his explanation, dtd. 25/9/2006 contending that the said Supplementary Sethwar was cancelled after the petitioner obtaining NOC and the construction permission in question and as on the date of submission of application for grant of NOC and construction permission, the said supplementary Sethwar is well in force and therefore, there is no suppression of fact or fraud played by the petitioner in this regard.