SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(AP) 546

J.ESWARA PRASAD, V.SIVARAMAN NAIR
Venkateswara Talkies – Appellant
Versus
Government Of A. P. – Respondent


ESWARA PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) IN this Writ Petition a question of general importance and frequent occurrence is raised by Sri K. Manikyal Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the question being whether the second proviso to Rule 9-B (c) of the A. P. Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970, can be invoked in aid by an applicant for grant of permission to construct a cinema building when he furnishes false particulars or information in the application made by him to the licensing authority in Form A-I, which, when brought to the notice of the licensing authority, necessitates an enquiry into the truth or otherwise of the same, completion of which may exceed three months time. In view of the importance of the question raised, I am of the opinion that this Writ Petition shall be heard by a Division Bench as there is no authoritative pronouncement on the question raised. Place the papers before the honourable the Chief Justice for appropriate orders of posting at an early date.

( 2 ) THIS petition coming on for final hearing before the Honourable mr. Justice Sivaraman Nair and the Honourable Mr. Justice Eswara Prasad on 6-12-1991 pursuant to the order of reference of this Court dated













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top