THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1094 OF 2025

JUDGMENT:

(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

Aggrieved by the interlocutory order, dated

24.09.2025 passed in W.P.No.29214 of 2025 by the learned Single Judge, the present Writ Appeal is filed.

2. Heard Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior counsel representing Sri S. Sahil Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant; the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.2 & 3 and Sri Vijay Gopal, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant had contended that the appellant is a producer and it had produced a film in the name and style as “OG” and it had invested huge amounts in producing the said movie. Since it is a high budget movie, the appellant had submitted a representation to the State Government on 17.09.2025, seeking to collect higher ticket rates than what has been prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.No.120, dated 21.12.2021 and the State Government vide memo dated 19.09.2025 was pleased to grant exemption under Section 12 of Telangana Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) and permitted the appellant to enhance the ticket rates from the date of release i.e., from 24.09.2025 till 04.10.2025 and the movie was also released yesterday i.e., 24.09.2025. However, respondent No.1/writ petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.29214 of 2025, challenging the memo dated 19.09.2025 issued in favour of the appellant and the learned Single Judge vide order, dated 24.09.2025 have suspended the said Memo, without issuing any notice or hearing the appellant and directed the matter to be listed on 09.10.2025.

4. Learned Senior Counsel had further contended that the exemption granted by the State Government in favour of the appellant is only up to 04.10.2025 and writ petition was directed to be listed on 09.10.2025. If the Writ Petition was taken up on 09.10.2025, the object of issuing memo, dated 19.09.2025 itself would be defeated. Learned Senior Counsel had further contended that the learned Single Judge could not have suspended the Memo, dated

19.09.2025, without issuing notice and hearing the appellant. To this proposition, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant had relied upon the judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Raja Khan vs. Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board and another, (2011) 2 SCC 741 wherein, the Honourable Supreme Court had held that if ex parte interim orders are granted by the learned Single Judge at the admission stage that too, without hearing the affected parties, virtually it amounts to allowing the Writ Petition and such practice was deprecated by the Honourable Supreme Court.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant had further relied upon the judgment rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sandeep Kumar Balmiki and others, (2009) 17 SCC 555, wherein the Honourable Supreme Court had held that if the High Court grant stay the termination orders at the admission stage, it amounts to virtually allowing the Writ Petition at the admission stage and was pleased to set aside the ex parte order. Admittedly, in the instant case, the impugned memo dated

19.09.2025 issued in favour of the appellant is suspended by the learned Single Judge at the admission stage that too, without issuing notice and giving opportunity to the appellant. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge in suspending the Memo, dated 19.09.2025, at the admission stage, that too, without giving an opportunity to the appellant would amount to virtually allowing the subject Writ Petition. Learned Senior Counsel had further contended that the Memo, dated 19.09.2025, which was issued by the State Government in favour of the appellant is valid only up to 04.10.2025. No opportunity is given to the appellant to contest the case. If the subject Writ Petition is taken up for hearing on