High Court of KeralaWP(C)/19827/2015disposed of

P.M.Anandavalli v. The Manjeri Municipality

2015-07-014 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2015/10TH ASHADHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 19827 of 2015 (C) ---------------------------- PETITIONER :

------------------ P.M.ANANDAVALLI, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O A.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR (LATE), ANANDA VIHAR KARUVAMBRAM, MELAKKOM, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU S. NAIR SMT.SMITHA BABU RESPONDENTS :

----------------------

1. THE MANJERI MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MANJERI MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN:676121.

2. THE SECRETARY MANJERI MUNICIPALITY, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN:676 121.

BY SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA, SC, MANJERI MUNICIPALITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 19827 of 2015 (C) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1:

TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCES ISSUED TO THE MOVIE THEATER (SCREEN-1) BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 6.2.2015. EXHIBIT P2:

TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCES ISSUED TO THE MOVIE THEATER (SCREE-2) BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 6.2.2015. EXHIBIT P3:

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT FIXING THE RAE OF ADMISSION TO BE RS.50/- TO SCREEN 1 OF THE MULTIPLEX. EXHIBIT P4:

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT, FIXING THE RATE OF ADMISSION TO BE RS.150/- TO SCREEN 2 OF THE MULTIPLEX.

EXHIBIT P5:

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSES BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS NO.R3.15050/2015 DATED, 29.6.2015.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE bp

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C) No.19827 of 2015 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of July, 2015

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by Ext.P5 order directing the petitioner to reduce the rate of admission to the cinema which was renovated recently from 150/- to 100/-, the petitioner has come up before ₹ ₹ this Court.

2. The petitioner alleges that the cinema run by her is having the latest technologies and sound system as Dolby Atmos. Only lesser number of seats are provided for comfortable push back. The petitioner was issued with Exts.P1 and P2 licenses for the exhibition of films wherein the maximum rate for admission was specified to be 150/-; it is alleged. The rate of admission to be ₹ 150/- to screen 1 and 2 of the multiplex suggested by the ₹ petitioner was approved by the 2nd respondent by Exts.P3 and P4 orders.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent has issued Ext.P5 order directing that the rate of admission should be reduced to 100/-. According to her, Ext.P5 is apparently illegal ₹ as the same has been passed without hearing nor without issuing any notice to her before the reduction of rate of admission.

4. The petitioner further alleges that the only reason that was stated in Ext.P5 was that the respondent municipality had received complaints from the DYFI and Youth Congress and, therefore, the rate of admission was reduced from Rs.150/- to Rs.100/- which at any rate, cannot have any justification. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent municipality.

6. It appears from the apparent tenure of Ext.P5 that the same was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, on that count itself, Ext.P5 calls for an interference.

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P5 and directing the respondent municipality to reconsider the issue after affording the petitioner and affected parties an opportunity of being heard, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till then the rate already fixed by the petitioner shall be in force.

Sd/- A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE krj