B. PRAKASH RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, Andhra Pradesh Film chamber of Commerce, files this Writ petition seeking Mandamus to declare the impugned circular dated 9-7-2002 issued by the 2nd respondent as bad, illegal and void. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has all the theaters in thestate on its members. Under the impugned circular, which was affecting the theaters in the Krishna District, the second respondent directed the manager in-charge of all the theaters in the Vijayawada District to produce various certificates for the renewal of B-Form licenses issued under the provisions of A. P. Cinemas (Regulation) act, 1955 and Rules made thereunder. According to the petitioner, the law does not require any such production. Though it is required to produce only two certificates for the purpose of renewal, viz. , (1) soundness and structural (Longevity) Certificate issued by the Executive Engineer, R and B (2) Electrical and fire Certificate issued by the Dy. Electrical Inspector, the impugned circular now requires production of approved Films certificate from the Films division, Film Chamber Membership certificate, NSS Bonds worth Rs. 2,000/- to rs. 20,000/- and a certificate from Mandal revenue Officer regarding lawful possession. Since these requirements are not statutorily required no reasons are assigned for such procedure, the impugned circular is not valid. Hence, the Writ. ( 3 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by thesecond respondent it was stated that the certificates mentioned in the Circular are required as per Rule 12 (A) of A. P. Cinema (Regulations) Rules, 1970 and also as per the instructions from the Government from time to time. The certificates required, except the nss bonds, which are voluntary, are relevant at the time of renewal. Further, it was pointed out that the Approved Films certificate from the Films Division is required as per condition Nos. 41 and 42 of b-Form licence and as per the sub-section (4) of Section 12 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The said condition of compulsory screening of approved films and charge of rentals and issuance of Approved Film certificate of Films Division was already upheld by the Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP Nos. 4620 and 4621 of 1996 on 15-7-1996 between IFMPA v. Union of India. Accordingly, the Government of a. P. have also issued instructions vide memo No. 36170/general. A-2/2001-6 dated 3-5-2002. 4620 and 4621 of 1996 on 15-7-1996 between IFMPA v. Union of India. Accordingly, the Government of a. P. have also issued instructions vide memo No. 36170/general. A-2/2001-6 dated 3-5-2002. ( 4 ) WITH the above pleadings, thesubmissions made on either side and a perusal of record leads to the question for consideration in this case as to whether the impugned circular is valid and the same is in consonance with the statutory provisions viz. , the A. P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 and the Rules made thereunder. ( 5 ) BEFORE adverting to the relevantprovisions thereunder, it necessitates to refer the circular and its contents. ( 6 ) IN the impugned circular dt. 9-7-2002the respondent No. 2 directed the managements of Cinema Theaters in vijayawada Division to enclose along with their application seeking for renewal the following requirements: (1) Approved Films Certificate from the Films Division. (2) A. P. Film Chamber Membership certificate. (3) Soundness and Structural (Longevity) Certificate issued by the Executive Engineer, R and B. (4) Electrical and Fire Certificate issued by the Dy. Electrkal Inspector. (5) Licence renewal fee @ Rs. 1,000/- per year for more than 500 seating capacity. (6) Licence renewal fee @ Rs. 500/- per year for less than 500 seating capacity. (7) Late fee @ 20/- per day. (8) NSS Bond worth Rs. 20,000/-for theaters in Vijayawada Urban area. (9) NSS Bond worth Rs. 10,000/- for theatres in other Mandals. (10) NSS Bond worth Rs. 2,000/- for temporary theatres. (11) Certificate of Lawful possession by the Licensee over the site, theatre and equipment - (issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer concerned.) ( 7 ) AGAINST these conditions, thepetitioners are aggrieved and according to them most of the requirements as contemplated therein do not form part of the requirements as contemplated under the provisions of A. P. Cinemas (Regulation) act, 1955 or Rules made thereunder and also even under any provisions of the cinematograph Act, 1952. There is no doubt under the aforesaid provisions there is a procedure contemplated for the purpose of applying the licence initially and also for renewal thereof, at later stage after the period of expiry. As regards the requirement shown at Serial Nos. 1 to 7 as stated above, it cannot be said that those requirements do not fall within the parameters of the requirements under the aforesaid rules. As regards the requirement shown at Serial Nos. 1 to 7 as stated above, it cannot be said that those requirements do not fall within the parameters of the requirements under the aforesaid rules. As stated in the counter-affidavit the requirement of Approved Film Certificate is only in pursuance of the Condition Nos. 41 and 42 of B-Form licence and also as per the sub-sec. (4) of Section 12 of Cinematograph act, 1952. The very same requirement was upheld by the courts and ultimately the supreme Court dismissed the leave application in the aforesaid SLP Nos. 4620 and 4621 of 1996 on 15-7-1996 and consequently the Government has issued the necessary instructions in this regard. Therefore, the requirement at Item No. 1 cannot be said to be beyond the scope of the legislation. Coming to the other requirements viz. , Film Chamber membership Certificate as shown at serial no. 2 which is required as per condition 48-A of B-Form licence which is reiterated by the Government by issuing g. O. Ms. No. 166 Home (General-A ). Department dated 26-6-1998. In view of the same, the said condition also cannot be said to be beyond the scope of the aforesaid requirements. Further, in regard to the items 3 to 7 are concerned they are all unsustainable and therefore, it cannot be said that they do not form part of any statutory requirement. Surprisingly, the requirement shows at items 8 to 10 they contemplate the managements to submit the necessary bonds valued from Rs. 2000/- to 20,000/ -. This according to the counter affidavits is only a voluntary contribution from the respective management but not compulsory. If that is so, there is no necessity to make the same as part of the circular issued contemplating submission thereof along with other required forms as contemplated under law. Admittedly, no such requirement is provided for, in regard to bonds under the provisions of either a. P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act or the cinematograph Act, 1952 or the Rules made there under. Under the guise of the circular the respondents are only trying to gather such bonds by compulsion, which is only beyond the scope of the statute, hence, the same is unsustainable. In regard to the item no. Under the guise of the circular the respondents are only trying to gather such bonds by compulsion, which is only beyond the scope of the statute, hence, the same is unsustainable. In regard to the item no. 11, the requirement of certificate of lawful possession from the Mandal Revenue officer is concerned the same is also do not form part of any statutory requirement under either of the aforesaid legislations. The question as to what constituted lawful possession as contemplated under Rule 12 (b) of the A. P. Cinemas (Regulations) Rules, 1970 is the subject matter of various decisions bqth in this court as well as the apex Court. The said question has to be gone into and decided by the licensing authority on the facts and circumstances of each case after hearing both sides and also the objections received from any quarter. However, the same cannot also be decided by any authority including the revenue authority as contemplated there under. Thus the Mandal Revenue Officer cannot issue any such certificate in regard to the possession either sitting it as lawful or unlawful. Therefore, the said condition is also beyond the scope of the statute. Hence, it has to be held that the requirement shown at items 8 to 11 are outside the scope of the statute. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition isallowed declaring that the insistence of the requirement shown at items 8 to 11 in the impugned circular is set aside. No costs.