SIVARAMAN NAIR, J.

( 1 ) THERE is an apparent conflict between the views expressed by two Division Benches of this Court in relation to the effect of Rule 9 (b) of A. P. Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1970. The view expressed in Sri Satya Cine Enterprises, Hyderabad vs. Govt. of A. P. and others by a Division Bench was that:"even if some rule is not complied with which needs to be complied with before making of an applicaction for permission to construct a cinema theatre and the application is also not rejected within a period of ninety days still under the circumstances the second proviso accords grant of deemed permission to the applicant. As such, subsequent to the working out of the second proviso, if it is found that the application is in violation of a certain rule and hence the deemed permission cannot be accepted then it amounts to nullifying the very proviso incorporated through the G. O. dated 16-6-1978. Therefore, contravention or violation of certain rules which ought to have been complied with before grant of permission cannot be a reason for non-acceptance of the deemed permission under the incorporated proviso. "in M/s. Venkateswara Talkies vs. Govt, of A. P. and others

Click Here to Read the rest of this document