Dismissed¶35

Natti Kumar v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Mar 2026WP/18199/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissed as infructuous; writ of mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; Section 151 CPC; I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2021; interim orders dated 4-10-2021 sought to be vacated; representation dated 05.08.2021; G.O.Ms. 35 dated 08.04.2021; Sections 9, 10 and 11 A.P. Cinemas Regulation Act, 1955; Visaka Talkies proprietor Natti Kumar; Sri Sai Lakshmi Theatre, Chodavaram, Anakapalli; Joint Collector and RDO Visakhapatnam; GP for Home; GP for Revenue; V V Satish; N Subba Rao; Surya; K. Sreenivasa Reddy, J.; APHC010306402021; decided 16.03.2026; miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

Recording the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner (Sri Surya, representing Sri N. Subba Rao) that the matter has become infructuous, this Court dismissed the Writ Petition as infructuous. ¶35

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

¶1

[3327]

¶2

APHC010306402021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 18199/2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

NATTI KUMAR, S/O. N. VENKATRAO, PRO.OF VISAKA TALKIES PROPRIETOR, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,RESIDING AT PLOT NO.343, R.K.DUPLEX, KIRLAMPUDI LAYOUT, BEACH ROAD,VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE JOINT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT

¶14

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶15

SRI SAI LAKSHMI THEATRE, REP. BY ITS PROP.PUSARLA PAVAN KUMAR, SAI LAKHMI COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, CHODAVARAM, ANAKAPALLI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

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 a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondent No. 1 to 3 in failure to take action on my representation 05.08.2021 against the 4th

¶18

Respondent is in accordance with G.O.Ms. 35 dated 08.04.2021 and also in accordance with section 9, 10 and 11 of the A.P. Cinemas regulations act, 1955 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently, direct the Respondents to act on my representation and to take action in terms of G.O.Ms. 35 dated 08.04.2021 and in terms of provisions A.P. Cinemas regulations act, 1955 and pass

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶20

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 Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to consider and take a decision on my representation Dt.05.08.2021 accordance with G.O.Ms. 35 dated 08.04.2021and also in terms of section 9,10 and 11 of the A.P. Cinemas regulations act, 1955 and pass

¶21

IA NO: 2 OF 2021

¶22

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 vacate the interim orders granted in I.A.No. 1 of 2021 in WP.N0.18199 of 2021 dated 4-10-2021 and pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.N SUBBA RAO

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR HOME

¶27

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶28

3.V V SATISH

¶29

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

¶30

Writ Petition No.18199 of 2021

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

The Writ Petition is filed for the following relief:

¶33

“…to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondent No. 1 to 3 in failure to take action on my representation 05.08.2021 against the 4th Respondent is in accordance with G.O.Ms. 35 dated 08.04.2021 and also in accordance with section 9, 10 and 11 of the A.P.Cinemas regulations act, 1955 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently, direct the Respondents to act on my representation and to take action in terms of G.O.Ms.35 dated 08.04.2021 and in terms of provisions A.P. Cinemas regulations act, 1955 and pass…”

¶34

Sri Surya, learned counsel representing Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter has become infructuous and requests to close this matter.

¶35