Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/ S. Soni Raj vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 28 November, 2019
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.10482 OF 2019
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned orders of the 2nd respondent vide Ref.No.REV-CSECOCA (REP2)/2/2017-JA(C4)- KDPCO dated 21.07.2019 for closure of the petitioner's M/s Soni Raj A/c Theatre, Rayachoti, YSF Kadapa District without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show-cause notice as being illegal arbitrary and in violation of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same"
The petitioner filed I.A.No.03 of 2019 to implead the Executive Engineer, R and B Department, the District Medical and Health Officer, Kadapa, the Deputy Electrical Inspector, Kadapa and the Divisional Fire Officer, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District as respondent Nos.10 to 13, for limited purpose of inspecting the premises and issuing necessary certificates. The said petition was allowed.
The reason for closure of the theatre is failure of the petitioner to produce fire certificate, validity of electrical certificate and NOC from electricity department, sanitary certificate from D.M.H.O and it is in violation of Rule 12A and 12B of the AP Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970. The certificate of longevity of the building issued by the Executive Engineer (R and B), certificate of validity of the Electrical and Fire certificate in Form-D issued by the Electrical Inspector are mandatory for renewal of B-Form license. The order to close the theatre of the petitioner was preceded by show-cause notice dated 14.06.2019 and the petitioner submitted reply to the said show- cause notice.
MSM,J WP_10482_2019 2 Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, requested this Court to direct the respondent Nos.10 to 13 to inspect the premises and issue necessary certificate depending upon the conditions of the building.
Learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 9 contended that already inspection was done and panchanama was prepared.
No material is available on record to show that the inspection was done. However, directing respondent Nos.10 to 13 would disclose the real problem to run the Cinema theatre.
Hence, respondent Nos.10 to 13 are directed to inspect the building in the presence of the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 to 9 and issue certificate if the building is fit for use satisfying the requirement as per Rule 12A and 12B of the A.P.Cinemas (Regulation) Rules. If the certificate is issued in compliance of Rule 12 A and 12 B of the A.P.Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, respondent No.2 may renew the licence and pass appropriate order permitting the petitioner to run the theatre.
With the above, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both parties. No costs.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY 28.11.2019 Ksp