ORDER : Suddala Chalapathi Rao, J. The Writ Petition No.13373 of 2007 is filed challenging G.O.Ms.No.1481 Revenue (C.T.IV), dated 01.08.2005, in fixing a lower of rate of entertainment tax for high and low budget Telugu films produced in the State of Andhra Pradesh, to that of films produced outside the State of Andhra Pradesh for the same areas and same facilities as discriminatory and contrary to law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Aashirwad Films v. Union of India (UOI) and others (Civil Appeal No.709 of 2004, dated 18.05.2007). Consequently to direct the respondents to collect the entertainment tax for the film ‘Shivaji’ produced outside the State of Andhra Pradesh, on par with the films produced in the composite State of Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Writ Petition No.14840 of 2007 is filed challenging G.O.Ms.No.1481 Revenue (C.T.IV), dated 01.08.2005 in fixing a lower of rate of tax for high and low budget Telugu films produced in the State of Andhra Pradesh to that of films produced outside the State of Andhra Pradesh for the same areas and same facilities as discriminatory and contrary to law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Aashirwad Films v. Union of India (UOI) and others (Civil Appeal No.709 of 2004, dated 18.05.2007). Consequently to direct the respondents to collect the entertainment tax for the films “APNE”, “AWARAPAN” and “NAKAAB” produced outside the State of Andhra Pradesh on par with high budget Telugu films produced in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 3. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions being common, we proceed to decide and dispose of these writ petitions by this common order. 4. It contended by the counsel for the petitioners that Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Aashirwad Films (supra) at paragraph-25 held that “the State cannot impose two sets of taxes basing on the languages”, which is discriminatory and unconstitutional. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that in the instant case also, the respondent-State has imposed two sets of taxes for the Telugu high and low budget films produced in the State of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O.Ms.No.1481 Revenue (C.T.IV), dated 01.08.2005 and other rate of tax for the films produced outside the State of Andhra Pradesh vide Act 32 of 2005, dated 04.06.2005. As such the same is discriminatory in nature, unconstitutional and also violative of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashirvad Films (supra). 6. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for respondents that vide G.O.Ms.No.1481 dated 01.08.2005, the State has given concession rate of tax for the high and low budget Telugu films, which are produced in the State of Andhra Pradesh only, so as to encourage the growth of the film production in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The said concessional rate in taxes under the G.O.Ms.No.1481 Revenue (CT.IV) dated 01.08.2005 cannot be said as discriminatory and unconstitutional. He further contended that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated in Aashirwad Films (supra), has no application to the facts of this case. 7. We have given earnest consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel Sri K.Durga Prasad for petitioners and Mr. T.Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader for State Tax and perused the material on record. 8. As seen from the G.O.Ms.No.1481 Revenue (CT.IV) dated 01.08.2005, the rate of Rate entertainment tax was fixed at 15% for high and low Telugu films produced in the State of Andhra Pradesh, whereas, as per Act No.32/2005 4.6.2005 the tax was fixed at 20% for the films produced outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. Further, the said variation is based on place of production, but not on language, as is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 9. In the light of the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, that the said concession is given to the films produced in Andhra Pradesh, to give encouragement for production of films in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the said submission of the State Counsel appears to be germane and valid. 10. Further in the light of the submissions by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said concession/variation of taxes, is discriminatory and unconstitutional, we have considered the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and extract the relevant portion for better understanding as the said variation of taxes is unjustified and unconstitutional besides being discriminatory. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dipak Sibal v. Punjab University, (1989) 2 SCC 145 has held that, “9. It is now well settled that Article 14 forbids class legislation, but does not forbid reasonable classification. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Dipak Sibal v. Punjab University, (1989) 2 SCC 145 has held that, “9. It is now well settled that Article 14 forbids class legislation, but does not forbid reasonable classification. Whether a classification is a permissible classification under Article 14 or not, two conditions must be satisfied, namely, (1) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and (2) that the differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. xxx 20. In considering the reasonableness of classification from the point of view of Article 14 of the Constitution, the court has also to consider the objective for such classification. If the objective be illogical, unfair and unjust, necessarily the classification will have to be held as unreasonable. ….” 12. In National Council for Teacher Education v. Shri Shyam Shiksha Prashikshan Sansthan , 2011 (2) SCALE 59 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has opined thus, “16. Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification provided that it is found on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and the differentia has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation in question. In re the Special Courts Bill, 1978 [( 1979 1 SCC 380 ], Chandrachud, C.J., speaking for majority of the Court adverted to large number of judicial precedents involving interpretation of Article 14 culled out several propositions including the following: “(2) The State, in the exercise of its governmental power, has of necessity to make laws operating differently on different groups or classes of persons within its territory to attain particular ends in giving effect to its policies, and it must possesses for that purpose large powers of distinguishing and classifying persons or things to be subjected to such laws.” 13. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court (supra) fixing of concessional rate of taxes for the films produced in the state of Andhra Pradesh to that of the films produced outside the state of Andhra Pradesh, can be termed as reasonable classification and permissive legislation. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court (supra) fixing of concessional rate of taxes for the films produced in the state of Andhra Pradesh to that of the films produced outside the state of Andhra Pradesh, can be termed as reasonable classification and permissive legislation. Hence, the said ground of the counsel for the writ petitioners that the G.O.Ms.No.1481 Revenue (CT.IV), dated 01.08.2005 is unreasonable and unconstitutional and discriminatory, is hereby rejected and there is no pith and substance in the contentions of the learned counsel for petitioners. 14. As regards to the second contention that the said G.O.Ms.No.1481 Revenue (CT.IV) dated 01.08.2005 is contrary to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Aashirwad Films (supra), we have perused the said judgment and in the said case the State has imposed two different sets of taxes for the films basing on languages in that view the Hon’ble Apex Court, has held that the said variation of taxes to be discriminatory and unconstitutional. The said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the instant cases as there is no variation of taxes based on language and as such the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is also rejected as untenable. 15. Thus, in the light of above findings, the contentions of the writ petitioners that G.O.Ms.No.1481 Revenue (CT.IV), dated 01.08.2005 is contrary to Aashirwad Films (supra) and is unconstitutional, baseless and untenable. The writ petitions are devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 16. In view of the above stated findings and conclusions, the writ petitioners have miserably failed to substantiate their case for the reliefs claimed in the above writ petitions. 17. The Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As sequel thereto , miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.