Natti kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

Natti kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the abnormal increase of rates by the theatres contrary to existing Government orders is illegal, null, void and arbitrary, and whether the respondents should be directed not to permit the theatres in their jurisdiction to increase the rates to Rs.300/-, Rs.200/-, Rs.100/- and Rs.50/- (prayer for writ of mandamus under Article 226). +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution, as none appeared for the petitioner either physically or through video conference though the matter was posted under the caption 'for dismissal', and there was no representation on previous adjournments; there shall be no order as to costs.

Key takeaways

As a sequel to the dismissal, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a business-man petitioner challenging the alleged abnormal increase of cinema/theatre rates by theatres contrary to existing Government orders, seeking a writ of mandamus declaring such increase illegal, null, void and arbitrary and directing the State, the Joint Collectors/Licensing Authorities of Visakhapatnam, Vizianagaram and Srikakulam, and the Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam not to permit rate increases to Rs.300/-, Rs.200/-, Rs.100/- and Rs.50/-; IA No. 1 of 2019 under Section 151 CPC sought interim capping of rates at Rs.100/- for the release of the film 'Saaho' by the 6th respondent (Venkateshwara Films). The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home had contended the petition was not maintainable as the enhancement was in accordance with existing rules. The petition was dismissed for non-prosecution: none appeared for the petitioner physically or through video conference though the matter was posted under the caption 'for dismissal', and there was no representation on previous adjournments. No order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications stood closed.

APHC010268832019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3368]

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

WRIT PETITION NO: 12161/2019

Between:

NATTI KUMAR, S/O DR.VENKAT RAO AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS PRESENTLY STAYING AT FLAT NO.343 R.K.DUPLEX, DUTCH LAYOUT BEACH ROAD, VISAKHAPATNAM 530018

...PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME (GENERAL. A) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

THE JOINT COLLECTOR AND LICENSING AUTHORITY, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT

THE JOINT COLLECTOR AND LICENSING AUTHORITY, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT

THE JOINT COLLECTOR AND LICENSING AUTHORITY, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPANTAM DISTRICT

VENKATESHWARA FILMS, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER DIL RAJU AND SIREESH DABA GARDENS, VISAKHAPATNAM 530016

...RESPONDENT(S):

2

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 abnormal increase of rates by the theartres contrary to the existing Government orders as illegal, null, void and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to permit the theatres in their jurisdiction to increase the rates as Rs.300/- Rs.200/- Rs.100/- and Rs.50/-

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents No.2, 3, and 4 not to permit the cinema rates above Rs.100/- in the theatres under their control for release of the film Saaho releasing by the 6th respondent from 30-082019 pending disposal of the above writ petition

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.SYED ZIAUDDIN

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR HOME (AP)

2.VIVEK CHANDRA SEKHAR S

The Court made the following:

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION No.12161 OF 2019

ORDER:

None appeared for the petitioner either physically or through video conference, though the matter is posted under the caption ‘for dismissal’. There was no representation for the petitioner on the previous adjournments also.

Sri R.Mallikarjuna Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and learned counsel for respondent No.6 are in attendance.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home on earlier occasion would submit that the writ petition is not maintainable in law, as enhancement of rates was in accordance with existing rules.

In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

05.02.2026 Pmk

4

58

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

WRIT PETITION No:12161 OF 2019

Date: 05.02.2026

Pmk