Judgment : Heard Sri Ravi Kondaveeti, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. K. Swapna, learned counsel representing Smt. Shanthi Neelam, learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri V. Ramesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the 2nd respondent. The petitioner claims to be absolute owner of plot admeasuring 2148 square yards in Survey No.865/1-A, 1A, 2A1 at Kandukur and the Licencing Authority, after obtaining inspection reports and No Objection Certificates from the concerned officials, granted construction permission for Twin Theatres in the said plot by the order dated 09-01-2010, with even the Commissioner of the 1st respondent issuing a No Objection Certificate dated 18-02-2009 after obtaining approval from the Municipal Council through its resolution dated 31-10-2008. When the petitioner started earth work in February, 2010, dug a bore-well and was proceeding with the work, the construction work was obstructed by the 1st respondent and again when the construction work was commenced, the 1st respondent’s officers interfered on 16-04-2012 and 11-07-2012. The petitioner claimed to have approached the Central Bank of India, Nellore, for sanction of a loan, which was stalled due to the illegal interference by the 1st respondent notwithstanding with the permission from the 2nd respondent. The petitioner, therefore, desired that the said interference of the 1st respondent be declared illegal and the 1st respondent be consequently directed not to interfere with the construction of the Twin Theatres. The 1st respondent in its counter affidavit through the Commissioner claimed that the site falls under residential zone as per the approved master plan in G.O.Ms.No.850, dated 25-10-2005, but the petitioner submitted that the site is adjacent to two Cinema halls and other commercial buildings. The Municipal Council has resolved to recommend to the Government for change of land use and the Government orders were issued in principle for change of land use from residential use zone to general commercial use by its memo dated 02-07-2009. The Municipal Commissioner was directed to collect development/conversion charges and report to the Government. The 1st respondent further stated that there was no specific approval by the Municipal Council for grant of No Objection Certificate to the petitioner, but in the mean while, the Municipal Commissioner informed the District Collector on 18-02-2009 that the Municipality has no objection. The Municipal Commissioner was directed to collect development/conversion charges and report to the Government. The 1st respondent further stated that there was no specific approval by the Municipal Council for grant of No Objection Certificate to the petitioner, but in the mean while, the Municipal Commissioner informed the District Collector on 18-02-2009 that the Municipality has no objection. The Licencing Authority, of course, has granted permission for construction of Twin Theatres and as the Municipal Council subsequently cancelled the proposal for widening the road and as the Government has not issued any final orders, the construction was interfered with. The bank was informed that no permission was accorded to the petitioner for construction of Twin Theatres and therefore, the 1st respondent stated that the petitioner shall have to await all mandatory approvals from the competent authorities to start construction. In the additional counter affidavit of the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent stated that the letter of the Municipal Commissioner dated 18-02-2009 stating no objection was irregular and as the widening of existing 26 feet wide road on northern side to 40 feet was cancelled by the Municipal Council vide resolution No.29-12-2009 in view of the objections raised by the residents of the locality and as the area of the construction falls under the residential area as per the master plan, which required conversion, action will be initiated to recommend cancellation of No Objection Certificate issued by the then Municipal Commissioner, Kandukur. The writ petition is, therefore, requested to be dismissed. The material papers on record show that the District Medical and Health Officer, Prakasam reported to the Collector and District Magistrate, Prakasam by a letter dated 27-06-2008 that the site in question is suitable for construction of Twin Theatres from public health point of view, subject, of course, to the specifications made in the said letter for compliance. The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam also recommended for grant of a No Objection Certificate regarding the said construction in his letter dated 04-07-2008. The Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings Division, Kanigiri similarly recommended to the Collector in his letter dated 19-07-2008 and above all the then Municipal Commissioner, Kandukur in his letter dated 18-02-2009 has stated in detail about the Municipal Council agreeing to such construction by its resolution dated 31-10-2008 in pursuance of which it sent proposals to the Government for conversion of land use from residential to commercial purpose. He also specified that the proposed site is located in a well developed commercial locality and close to two other cinema theatres and the road is having several shopping complexes and an eye hospital on the road. No objection was thus specified in clear and loud terms by the Municipal Commissioner. Even according to the counter affidavit, this No Objection communicated from the Municipal Commissioner has not been cancelled or suspended so far by taking recourse to any permissible administrative or statutory procedure as per law and the additional counter affidavit only speaks of initiating such action later. The drawings and plans submitted to the Licencing Authority by the Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings, were approved and even the Deputy Electrical Inspector informed the Licencing Authority about absence of any objection subject to the compliance with the specified conditions and so was the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kandukur, in his letter dated 27-11-2009. The attempt of the 1st respondent, who interfered with the construction in accordance with the Licencing Authority’s proceedings dated 09-01-2010, therefore, appears to be not based on any justifiable or legal grounds. Sri Ravi Kondaveeti, learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the decision of this Court in W.P.No.6796 of 2005 dated 28-08-2007 in which the learned Judge held that there is no requirement again for a person, who constructs a cinema theatre, to get permission under the Municipalities Act and the Municipality has no power or authority either to insist on obtaining such permission for construction of cinema theatres or to stop the construction or demolish the theatres already constructed as the power has been conferred on the Licencing Authority alone by virtue of the relevant statute, more particularly Section 6 thereof. Therefore, the 1st respondent, on the facts and circumstances as they exist now, has neither any justification nor jurisdiction to interfere with the construction of the twin theatres by the petitioner strictly in accordance with the permission accorded to him by the Licencing Authority and if the 1st respondent takes recourse to nullify the No Objection Certificate issued by its Commissioner earlier, it will be always open to the petitioner to resist the same in accordance with law, which expression of intention by the 1st respondent in its additional counter affidavit, cannot act as a mandatory prohibition against proceeding with the construction permitted as per law. The writ petition has to be, therefore, allowed. The writ petition has to be, therefore, allowed. The 1st respondent is, therefore, directed not to interfere with the construction of the twin theatres by the petitioner in the subject property strictly in accordance with the permission accorded by the 2nd respondent and the writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.