APHC010087632018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 3867 OF 2018 Between: 1. NAVARANG THEATRE, Vijayawada, Krishna District Rep. by its Proprietor R.V. Bhupal Prasad Krishna. ...Petitioner AND 1. STATE OF AP, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Home (General.A) Department Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur. 2. The District Collector, (The Joint Collector and Licensing Authority) Krishna District, at Machilipatnam. 3. The Films Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, 3rd Floor, CGO Complex Vijayawada. 4. The Tahsildar, Vijayawada Urban, Krishna District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Notice of Demand under Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 issued by the 4th Respondent in File No.TAHVJU-MGST/1/2018-DT (ENCR)-TAH NJS, J WP No.3867 of 2018 2 (VJAU)-VJADVN dated 08-01-2018, pursuant to the order of the 2nd Respondent in File No.Rev-CSECOCA(MIS)/29/2017-SA- C2-KCO dated 03-09-2017, demanding a sum of Rs.1,40,096/- onwards outstanding dues to the 3rd Respondent, Films Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India as on 19-07-2005 due by the Petitioner Theatre as illegal, null, void, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently to set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: K DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE (AP) Counsel for the Respondents: S SIVA KUMARI NJS, J WP No.3867 of 2018 3 The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri K. Durga Prasad, leaned counsel for the petitioner, who appeared through online. Also heard Sri R. Mallikarjuna Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri K. Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondent Nos.2 and 4. No representation on behalf of respondent No.3. 2. The Writ Petition is filed impugning the notice of demand, dated 08.01.2018, issued by the 4th respondent, under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (for short „the Act‟), pursuant to the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 03.09.2017. Through the said notice of demand, an amount of Rs.1,40,096/-, stated to be outstanding dues to the 3rd respondent – Films Division, was sought to be collected from the petitioner. 3. While directing notice before admission, learned Judge of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, vide orders dated 14.02.20218, granted interim suspension of the impugned proceedings. NJS, J WP No.3867 of 2018 4 4. No counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents. 5. Be that as it may. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 3rd respondent – Films Division used to supply short films to all the theatres in the State of Andhra Pradesh as well as throughout India and collect rentals thereon and, subsequently, it voluntarily stopped supply of the same from 1995 onwards. Subsequently, as it is insisting for payment of rentals from the theatres in the State of Andhra Pradesh, a batch of Writ Petitions were filed, vide Writ Petition No.21734 of 2001 etc., that the same were disposed of along with Writ Appeal No.298 of 2001 and batch, dated 21.08.2001. He submits that in the light of the said decision, the recovery of alleged dues towards rentals under the provisions of the Act is not tenable and, if at all, the respondents have to approach the competent Forum for recovery of alleged dues. 6. Considering the said submissions, more particularly, in the absence of any counter affidavit contradicting the averments in the Writ Petition, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition in the light of the observations made by the Hon‟ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.298 of 2001 and batch, dated 21.08.2001, which reads thus: NJS, J WP No.3867 of 2018 5 “An agreement can be express or implied. If short films have been supplied to the appellants they would irrespective of the legal position are liable to pay the amount in question to the Films Division. Even if the conditions of the licence as contended by the appellants were found to be invalid, they would still be liable in terms of Sections 65 and 70 of the Indian Contract Act. In fact, on their own showing the appellants had also been paying the said amount after the decision of the Supreme Court. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the liability of the appellants has to be determined on resolution of the dispute as to whether short films had been supplied to them or not. Such dispute has to be determined in an appropriate forum and not in a writ proceeding. It is needless to say that the State cannot refuse to renew the cinematograph licences of the appellants unless conditions precedent therefor are not satisfied.” 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________ NINALA JAYASURYA , J Date:02.12.2025 Nsr NJS, J WP No.3867 of 2018 6 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Writ Petition No.3867 of 2018 Date:02.12.2025 Nsr