Cine Prekshakula Viniyoga Darula Sangham v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh,

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 169 of 2015 Dt:10.07.2015 Between:

Cine Prekshakula Viniyoga Darula Sangham.

... Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Home & Cinema Autography, Hyderabad and others.

... Respondents

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 169 of 2015 PC: (per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner, in the instant Public Interest Litigation, seeks the following prayer:

"From the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the inaction of the respondents to control the black-marketing by the exhibitors who are selling tickets more than permitted by the licensing authorities and running more shows instead of four shows per day, consequently direct the respondents to direct their subordinates to take necessary and proper action by initiating Section 9-A of A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act 1955 to control the black-marketing while considering representation, dated 05.07.2015, of the petitioner and provide sufficient task to avoid bad incidents in the theatres and cancel the special premier shows by the NGOs who are selling tickets as they like and to pass such other order or order as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case."

From bare perusal of the prayer, it is clear that the petitioner now wants the High Court to monitor sale of cinema tickets and direct

the authorities to implement law. In our opinion, for such prayer, jurisdiction of the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be invoked. We are confident that the respondents, in particular respondent Nos.3 to 6, are capable enough to take care of law and order situation and also to enforce the law. In the circumstances, this Public Interest Litigation is dismissed.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of.

_________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ ________________________ S.V. BHATT, J Dt:10.07.2015 kdl