The court found that municipal notices must cite legal authority to be valid, emphasizing jurisdictional compliance under the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955.

ORDER :

J.SREENIVAS RAO, J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:-

“to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in issuing the notice calling to submit the documents relating to ownership of the building and NOC obtained from municipality and other documents relating to the property vide Notice No.C/81/1/2015, dated 23.04.2016 as illegal, null, void and arbitrary.”

2. Brief facts of the case:

2.1. According to the petitioner, originally in the year 1976 Shakuntala Theatre was constructed by one Mr. A. Raghava Reddy, who is the father-in-law of the present licensee Ms.A.Vasudha Reddy. Subsequently, Raghava Theatre was constructed in the year 1995 after obtaining the necessary permission from the competent licensing authority. Mr.A.Raghava Reddy died in the year 2001. After his demise, the theatre and license was transferred in the name of Mr.A.Veera Reddy, the husband of the present licensee. Later, Mr.A.Veera Reddy died in the year 2009, and thereafter the license was transferred in the name of Ms.A.Vasudha Reddy and her mother- in-law namely Ms.A.Anasuyamma @ Anasuya Devi. Since then, both the theatres have been under the control of Ms.A.Vasudha Reddy and her mother-in-law. Due to various reasons, disputes arose among the family members, and a family partition was effected in the year 2009 pursuant to an award passed by the Lok Adalat.

2.2. The petitioner further averred that Shakuntala Theatre was constructed in an extent of 1728 square yards, and Raghava Theatre was constructed in an extent of 1197 square yards, and both theatres together are situated in a total extent of 4086 square yards. While things stood thus, the Municipal Commissioner, Miryalaguda, issued a notice dated 29.10.2015, based on a complaint lodged by one K.Showri on 27.10.2015, alleging that Raghava and Shakuntala Theatres were constructed by encroaching the public road. Thereafter, a reminder notice dated 21.12.2015 was also issued. Aggrieved by the said notices, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.42529 of 2015 and the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Andhra Pradesh and for the State of Telangana (for short ‘combined High Court’) disposed of the said writ petition on 30.12.2015, directing the petitioner to submit relevant documents before the authorities. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed intra court appeal vide W.A.No.49 of 2016, and the same was disposed of on 27.01.2016.

2.3. It is further averred that pursuant to the order dated 30.12.2015 in W.P.No.42523 of 2015, the petitioner submitted explanation along with documents before the Municipal Commissioner, Miryalaguda. However, respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein have not passed any orders thereafter. While things stood thus, respondent No.3 issued another notice dated 05.01.2016, making the very same allegations as alleged by the Municipal Commissioner, Miryalaguda, in the notice dated 29.10.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.1104 of 2016, and the combined High Court granted interim directions on 01.02.2016. Subsequently, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on 17.04.2018.

2.4. During the pendency of the said writ petition, respondent No. 4, at the instance of respondent No.3, issued the impugned notice dated 23.04.2016, directing the petitioner to submit documents including the No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Municipality, title deeds, and other documents, based on an alleged complaint lodged by