MALLAVARAPU LAKSHMANA KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Bench: DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR,RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Andhra Pradesh judgment dated 2025-03-28. MALLAVARAPU LAKSHMANA KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI ^ (Special OriginalJurisdIction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE present HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR^ AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPAp WP(PIL^ NO: 22 OF 2025 Between: Mallavarapu Lakshmana Kumar, S/o. Rama Krishnaiah, Aged 65 years Occ: Venkaiah Street Self-Employee, R/o. FL. No. 503 Krishna Residency Pingali Bank Account Ramavarapadu Vijayawada Krishna Adhaar No. 766171938156 No. 20172929821, State Bank of India, Ramavarapadu ... PETITIONER^ AND 1. Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs Rep. Its Home Secretary, North block. New Delhi 110001. 2. Union of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Rep. by Its Delhi. 110001. Secretary, Room no. 655, A Wing Shastri Bhavan, New 3. Room No. Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Rep. by Its Secretary, 129-A, North Block, New Delhi. 4. to The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Chief Secretary Government.
Building 1, 1 st floor AP secretariat, Velagapudi Guntur. 5. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Home Ground Department), Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Room No. 136, Floor, Building No. 2, Velagapudi, Andhra Pradesh. 6. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Law and Andhra Pradesh. Legislature), Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, 7. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Finance (CT)) Department, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Andhra^... ^ Pradesh Development 8. The Andhra Pradesh State Film Television and Theatre Block Corporation, Rep. By its Manaaina Director NTR Administrative 4 Floor Pondit Nehru Bus DeM 9. The Commissioner, Information and oublic relations department Arrival Block, Pandit Nehru Bus StaC Vijayawada. Beside NH-16 10. The Director General of Police Police Headquarters, Service Road, Mangalagiri Guntur. 11 . The GST Council (Ministry of Finance), Rep.
by its Secretary, 5‘^ Floor, Tower II, Jeevan Bharti Buildina Janpath Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110 001. 12. The Income Tax Department (Ministry of Finance), Rep. by its Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Andhra Pradesh & Telangana Region 10*^ Floor, Income Tax Towers, AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004. IS. The Directorate of Enforcement, Department of Revenue Ministry of Finance Government of India Rep by its Director Pravartan Bhawan, APJ Abdul Kalam Road New Delhi-110011. 14. M/s. Sri Venkateswara Creations, Rep. By its Producer V. Venkata Ramana Reddy (Dil Raju) Plot No. 132 & 133 Kamalapuri Colony Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad, Telangana. IS. Ravipudi Anil Kumar, S/o. Brahmaiah, Aged 43 years, Occ; Director, R/o. Plot No. 132 & 133 Kamalapuri Colony Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad, Telangana. le. Daggubati Venkatesh, S/o. Ramanaidu Aged 64 years, Occ; Actor/ Hero, R/o. Plot No. 132 & 133 Kamalapuri Colony Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad, Telangana. 17. Kum Meenakshi Chaudhary, D/o.
B. R Chaudhary Aged 27 years, Occ; Actress / Heroine, R/o. Plot No. 132 & 133 Kamalapuri Colony Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad, Telangana. Occ; Actress / 18. Kum Aishwarya Rajesh, D/o. Late Rajesh Aged 35 years, Heroine, R/o. Plot No. 132 & 133 Kamalapuri Colony Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad, Telangana. 19. Daggubati Suresh Babu, S/o. Ramanaidu Aged 66 years, Occ; Producer /Distributor, R/o. Rama Naidu Studios Film Nagar, Telangana Hyderabad -500 033. ... RESPONDENTS r Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in ■ the High Court may the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, particularly one in the be pleased to issue an order, writ or direction, more the respondents nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of enhancing the ticketing price and telecast of number of shows per day of 14 Vasthunam to respondent Super High Budget Films Sankranthiki 2022 dated 20. 04. 2022 violating the orders of this court in WP. No.
7094 of and quidproquo of production cost of more than Rs. lOO crores is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper against principles of Natural Justice and (i) Direct the respondents more particularly 5‘^ respondent to revise the ticket price of Vasthunam as 14 to 18‘^ respondent Super High Budget Films Sankranthiki 07. 03. 2022 and per G. O. Ms. No. 13 Home (General-A) Department dated th Direct the 13 recover the excess amounts to state exchequer (ii) th respondent to make a proper inquiry / investigation against 14 to 18 of respondents Super High Budget Films Sankranthiki Vasthunam quidproquo of production cost of more than Rs. lOO crores (iii) Direct the respondents to import a proper inquiry against 14 to 19^'" respondents for their hype in promoting their film named Sankranthiki Vasthunam.
lA NO: 1 OF 2025 circumstances Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents more particularly 13**^ respondent to make a proper inquiry / investigation against 14 to 18*'' respondents Super High Budget Films ““Sankranthiki Vasthunam” of quidproquo of production cost of and telecast of more than Rs. lOO crores for enhancing the ticket price movie Sankranthiki number of shows per day for 14 to 18**^ respondent dated Vasthunam as per G. O. Ms. No. 13 Home (General-A) Department Z'' 4. ^ 07. 03. 2022 inorder to deposit ®xcess amount to state exchequer pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice. ^ Counsel for the Petitioner ; SRI GUNDALA SIVA PRASADA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : SRI P. PONNA RAO, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 : GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos.
5 & 10 : GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 ;GP FOR LAW AND LEGISLATURE Counsel for the Respondent No. 7 : GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 8 9, 14 to 19 : NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondent No. 11 : Mrs. SANTIPRIYA, CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent No. 12 : SRI Y. N. VIVEKANANDA, CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent No. 13 :SRI J. BHASKAR, SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondents : Ms. S. PRANTHI, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER^ The Court made the following: ORDER a APHC010038742025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3483] (Special Original Jurisdiction) WP(PIL) NO: 22/2025 Between: Mallavarapu Lakshmana Kumar ... PETITIONER AND Union Of India and Others ... RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GUNDALA SIVA PRASADA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 3. GP FOR COMMERCIAL TAX 4. 5.
GP FOR LAW LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE: ^S. 03. 2025 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati) This writ petition in the nature of the Public Interest Litigation has been filed for following relief: . declaring the action of the respondents enhancing the ticketing price and telecast of number of shows per day of 14 to 18^ respondent Super High Budget Films “Sankranthikl Vasthunam” violating the orders of this court in W. P. No. 7094 of 2022 dated 20. 04. 2022 and quidproquo of production cost of more than Rs. lOO crores is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper against principles of Natural Justice and (i) Direct the respondents more particularly respondent to revise the ticket price of 'a a 14' to 18*'' respondent Super Hiqh Budget Films “Sankranthiki dated Vasthunam” as per G. O. Ms. No. 13 Home (General-A) Department 07. 03.
2022 and recover the excess amounts to state exchequer (ii) n against Direct the 13"' respondent to make a proper inquiry/investigatio 14 to 18"' respondents Super High Budget Films “Sankranthiki than Rs. 100 Vasthunam” of quidproquo of production cost of more inquiry against 14 to = crores (Hi) Direct the respondents to Import a proper film named > 19"' respondents for their hype in promoting their “Sankranthiki Vasthunam” and pass. ” 2. Heard Sri G. Siva Prasad Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms S. Pranathi, learned Special Government Pleader for Respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, would contend that, the respondents have issued a memo dated 08. 01. 2025 for enhancing the ticket rates of the movie/film named “Sankranthiki Vasthunam” and further given permission to screen six(06) shows on 14. 01. 2025 and to screen five(05) shows from 15. 01. 2025 to 23. 01. 2025 with an additional amount of Rs.
125/- (including GST) for Multiplex and Rs. lOO/- (including GST) for single theatres on the existing (prevailing) rates, contrary to G. O. Ms. No. 13 Home (General-A) Department dated 07. 03. 2022. He would further contend that, in G. O. Ms. No. 13 dated 07. 03. 2022, at para 3, for Rates of Admission into theatres wherein a fixed rate per show was issued in different areas with different nature of theatres but in the memo issued by the 5*^ respondent, there was no specific rate for each category of show and altogether a fixed rate was confined which violates the said G. O. In fact, this Court in W. P. No. 7094 of 2022, granted interini stay for implementation of the G. O. Ms. No. 13 Home (General-A) Department dated 07. 03. 2022 and the same is still in force. In such an event, issuance of the enhancing the ticket memo dated 08. 01. 2025 by the 5*^ respondent, whereby the rights guaranteed under prices is illegal, unsustainable and would curtail the Constitution. 4.
Pleader for On the other hand, Ms S. Pranathi, Special Government Respondents submitted that the Government is proposing to modify the and the G. O. Ms. No. 13 Home (General-A) Department dated 07. 03. 2022 same is under consideration. She further contended that, in fact, the said India Federation House G. O. was questioned by one Multiplex Association of before this Court. in W. P. No. 7094 of 2022, which is pending adjudication Further, the petitioner has not made out any case in the present Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and the same is filed for oblique motives and for oblique consideration and the same deserves dismissal. 5. It is evident that questioning the G. O. Ms. No. 13 Home (General-A) of 2022 was Department dated 07. 03. 2022, a writ petition vide W. P. No. 7094 filed before this Court, which is pending adjudication wherein an interim stay was granted by this Court and the same is still in force.
In spite of the said interim stay, the respondents have enhanced the ticket prices for the film named “Sankranthiki Vastunam” by issuing a memo dated 08. 01. 2025, is the stand of the petitioner in the present PIL. As it could be seen, the interim stay of 2022 is with order passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 7094 issue in the case on hand. regard to online service charges, which is not the 6. 08. 01. 2025, Further, in the memo issued by the 5‘^ respondent dated the six(06) shows were scheduled on 14. 01. 2025 and five(05) shows were scheduled from 15. 01. 2025 to 23. 01 2025. By the time this point fdll for which consideration, the said shows have already been telecast, serves no purpose in dealing with the said aspect. Moreover, in view of the stand taken by the Government that they are proposing to modify the G. O. Ms. No. 13 Home (General-A) Department dated 07. 03.
2022, this Court is of the opinion that this petition has been, in fact, filed not on account of the interest of the public but only for purposes of getting publicity. 7. In so far as the investigation with regard to production cost of the movie/film is concerned, it is not viable in the writ Court to order the initiation of an investigation. That function clearly lies in the domain of the executive and it is up to the investigating agencies themselves to decide whether the material produced before them provides a sufficient basis to launch an investigation. In the said circumstances, directing the Enforcement Directorate to investigate, in our view, is again a abuse of the process of the Court, as the petition is short of wild and sweeping allegations and there is nothing placed before the Court which in any way may be called to be prima facie evidence.
The petitioner, thus, is attempting to seek a roving probe monitored by this Court into suspicions so entertained by the petitioners based on nothing but bald allegations. This is thus, certainly not a case warranting the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. is no point in dealing Be that as it may, considering the fact that there the film named “Sankranthiki with the aspect of enhancing the ticket prices for telecast, this Public Vastunam”, as the scheduled shows have already been Interest Litigation (PIL) is liable to be dismissed. There shall be Accordingly, the Public Interest Litigation is dismissed. no orders as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M. PvAIVIESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC OFFICER To, [OPUC] 1. One CC to Sri Gundala Siva Prasada Reddy, Advocate High Court 2. Two CCs to Ms. S. Pranathi, Special Government Pleader, of Andhra Pradesh. (OUT) of India 3.
One CC to Sri P. Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor General Advocate [OPUC] of Andhra 4. Two CC to GP for General Administration, High Court Pradesh. (OUT) Pradesh. 5. Two CC to GP for Commercial Tax, High Court of Andhra ' (OUT) (OUT) 6. Two CC to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh. 7. Two CC to GP for Law & Lagislature, High Court of (OUT) (OPUC) 8. One CC to Mrs. Santipriya, Central Govt. Counsel (OPUC) 9. One CC to Sri Y. N. Vivekananda, Central Govt. Counsel (OPUC) lO. One CC to Sri J. Bhaskar, Central Govt. Counsel 11. Three C. D. Copies. Cnr HIGH COURT CNR DATED:28/03/2025 ORDER WP(PIL). No. 22 of 2025 <? ^ 0 3 APR 2025 . Current Section . , % DISMISSING THE WP(PIL) WITHOUT COSTS
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.