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. 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 one Mr. Mahaboob Ali. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Heard Mr.K.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.B.Sridhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Ms.T.Swetcha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4. 4. Submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner 4.1. Learned counsel submitted that M/s.Raghava (R) Picture Palace and Shakuntala Theatre were constructed in the years 1995 and 1976 respectively, after obtaining the necessary permissions from the competent licensing authority under the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 (for short ‘APCR Act’). As per the APCR Act and the Rules framed thereunder, before granting a license, the licensing authority is required to obtain No Objection Certificates (NOC) from the concerned departments, namely the Revenue Authorities, local authority, Fire safety department, Medical and Health Department, and Roads and Buildings Department and also concerned jurisdictional SHO. As per the APCR Act and the Rules framed thereunder, before granting a license, the licensing authority is required to obtain No Objection Certificates (NOC) from the concerned departments, namely the Revenue Authorities, local authority, Fire safety department, Medical and Health Department, and Roads and Buildings Department and also concerned jurisdictional SHO. Therefore, the petitioner is not required to obtain any separate building permission either under the provisions of the Telangana Municipalities Act or the Telangana Gram Panchayats Act or under any other Act, as the Joint Collector is the licensing authority and he is the competent authority to grant permission and issue required license to exhibit the films in theatres. 4.2. He further submitted that, based on similar allegations as mentioned in the impugned notice, the Municipal Commissioner, Miryalaguda, had earlier issued a notice dated 29.10.2015. Pursuant to the orders passed by the combined High Court dated 30.12.2015, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation along with relevant documents to the Municipal Commissioner, Miryalaguda. However, no orders were passed thereafter. He further submitted that respondent No.4 issued the impugned notice dated 23.04.2016 merely on the alleged instructions of respondent No.3 and solely based on the alleged complaint lodged by one Mr.Mahaboob Ali, without even mentioning the provision of law or the source of power under which such notice was issued. 4.3. He further submitted that in the subject column of the impugned notice, respondent No.4 alleged that the petitioner’s theatres is exhibiting films without any permission and called upon the petitioner to submit an explanation, whereas in the body of the notice, the petitioner was directed to submit No Objection Certificates obtained from the Municipality, title deeds, and other documents. He further submitted that respondent No.4 has neither the authority nor the jurisdiction to issue the impugned notice, in view of bar under Section 6 of the APCR Act. Hence, the impugned notice issued by respondent No.4 is liable to be set aside justifiable on the ground of jurisdiction. 5. Submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.3 and 4: 5.1. Ms.T.Swetha, learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently contended that respondent No.4 had only issued a show cause notice directing the petitioner to submit relevant documents and respondent No.4 is empowered to do so under Section 149 of the Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli (herein after called brevity “1317 Fasli”). Ms.T.Swetha, learned Assistant Government Pleader vehemently contended that respondent No.4 had only issued a show cause notice directing the petitioner to submit relevant documents and respondent No.4 is empowered to do so under Section 149 of the Telangana Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli (herein after called brevity “1317 Fasli”). She further submitted that the petitioner, without submitting any explanation to the show cause notice, straightaway had approached this Court and filed present writ petition, challenging the said notice, which is not permissible in law. She further submitted that mere non-mentioning of the provision of law in the notice would not vitiate the proceedings. 5.2. She also submitted that Section 6 of the APCR Act does not operate as a bar to the issuance of a notice while exercising powers conferred under other enactments. She further submitted that the combined High Court, in an earlier round of litigation in W.P.No.42529 of 2015, had already rejected a similar contention raised by the petitioner, namely that the Municipal Commissioner, Miryalaguda, lacked the authority and jurisdiction to issue such a notice. 5.3. In support of her contention she relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in R.S.Raghunath v. State of Karnataka , (1992) 1 SCC 335 6. Submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.1 and 2: 6.1. Sri B.Sridhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner has not mentioned in the writ affidavit whether the petitioner had submitted any explanation or documents to the Municipal Commissioner, Miryalaguda pursuant to the notice dated 29.10.2015 or pursuant to the orders passed by the combined High Court in W.P.No.42529 of 2015 and in W.A.No.49 of 2016. He further submitted that the petitioner has also not filed any documents, including the license issued by the competent authority, to demonstrate whether the license issued by the competent authority is valid and subsisting, as on the date of filing of writ petition or till date. In the absence of the same, petitioner is not entitled any relief in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. Reply submission of learned counsel for the petitioner 7.1. Learned counsel submitted that pursuant to the order passed by the combined High Court in W.P.No.42529 of 2015, dated 30.12.2015, and in compliance with the order dated 27.01.2016 in W.A.No.49 of 2016, the petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation to the Municipal Commissioner, Miryalaguda. 7. Reply submission of learned counsel for the petitioner 7.1. Learned counsel submitted that pursuant to the order passed by the combined High Court in W.P.No.42529 of 2015, dated 30.12.2015, and in compliance with the order dated 27.01.2016 in W.A.No.49 of 2016, the petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation to the Municipal Commissioner, Miryalaguda. However, no orders were passed by the said Commissioner thereafter. He further submitted that the petitioner’s theatre, namely M/s Raghava (R) Picture Palace, is in operation as an today, and the license issued by the competent authority under the APCR Act is subsisting. Analysis 8. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that a theatre by name Shakunthala was constructed in the year 1976 in an extent of 1728 sq. yards. Subsequently, the theatre, namely M/s. Raghava (R) Picture Palace, was constructed in the year 1995 in an extent of 1191 sq. yards. Since then, the above said theatres have been running by exhibiting films. It is specifically averred that the mother- in-law of Mrs.A.Vasudha Reddy demolished the Shakuntala theatre. 9. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner specifically stated that the Joint Collector, Nalgonda District, had issued a B-Form license, and the said license is subsisting as on date and the petitioner theatre is running and exhibiting the films. 10. The record further reveals that based on the complaint lodged by one K.Showri, the Municipal Commissioner, Miryalguda Municipality, issued a show cause notice vide G/1296/TPO/2015, dated 29.10.2015, directing the petitioner to submit documents relating to ownership of the building and building permission, on the allegation that the petitioner had encroached upon a public road and constructed the cinema hall. Aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner approached the combined High Court and filed W.P.No.42529 of 2015, and the said writ petition was disposed of on 30.12.2015, directing the petitioner to submit an explanation along with relevant documents to the said authority. Upon receipt of such explanation, respondent Nos.2 and 3 were directed to conduct a detailed enquiry, take an appropriate decision, and communicate the same to the petitioner. Upon receipt of such explanation, respondent Nos.2 and 3 were directed to conduct a detailed enquiry, take an appropriate decision, and communicate the same to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an intra court appeal vide W.A.No.49 of 2016, and the Division Bench of the combined High Court disposed of the said appeal on 27.01.2016 directing the respondent No.2 therein not to part with any documents placed on record by the appellant along with his explanation to any person without his consent. 11. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, based on instructions and information furnished by the petitioner, specifically submitted that pursuant to the order dated 30.12.2015 and 27.01.2016 of the combined High Court the petitioner has submitted an explanation along with relevant documents to the Municipal Commissioner, Miryalguda. However, the said authority has not passed any orders. 12. The record also reveals that respondent No.3 issued a similar notice on 05.01.2016, alleging that the petitioner was running and exhibiting films in the absence of renewal of the B-Form license, and also directing the petitioner to submit an explanation along with documents, including building construction permission. Aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner had approached the combined High Court and filed W.P.No.1104 of 2016 and while admitting the said writ petition, the combined High Court initially granted an interim direction on 01.02.2016 in W.P.M.P. No.1362 of 2016. It is not in dispute that the said writ petition was subsequently dismissed as infructuous on 17.04.2018, based on the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. During the pendency of the said writ petition, respondent No.4 issued the impugned notice dated 23.04.2016 based on the instructions of respondent No.3 vide Letter No.A/2850/2016, dated - .03.2016. Upon perusal of the impugned notice, it reveals that one Mr.Mahboob Ali, lodged complaint before respondent No.3 alleging that the petitioner had constructed the cinema theatre without obtaining permission from the concerned Municipality, in violation of the Municipal Rules. Accordingly, respondent No.3 directed respondent No.4 to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. For the said purpose, respondent No.4 issued the impugned notice directing the petitioner to submit documents, namely, the NOC issued by the Municipality, title deeds, and other documents available with him, within a period of seven days. 13. Accordingly, respondent No.3 directed respondent No.4 to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. For the said purpose, respondent No.4 issued the impugned notice directing the petitioner to submit documents, namely, the NOC issued by the Municipality, title deeds, and other documents available with him, within a period of seven days. 13. It is relevant to mention that respondent No.4 issued the impugned notice solely for the purpose of submitting a report to respondent No.3, without disclosing the source of power and without mentioning the provision of law under which he was authorised to issue such notice, especially in the subject column it is mentioned that the petitioner theatre is exhibiting film without any permission and called upon the petitioner to submit an explanation, whereas in the body of notice it was mentioned that the petitioner constructed the theatre without permission of Municipality and violated Municipal Rules besides other allegations and directed the petitioner to produce title deeds and the NOC issued by the Municipality and other documents. Hence, this Court is of the view that impugned notice issued by respondent No.4 is defective one. Though the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue referring the provisions under Section 147 of 1357 Fasli submitted that respondent No.4 is having authority to issue notice and non-mentioning of the provision of law would not vitiate the proceedings, this Court is not inclined to accept the said submission especially the Commissioner, Miryalaguda Municipality had issued a notice dated 29.10.2015, with similar allegations. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had already submitted an explanation along with relevant documents to the said Municipality pursuant to the directions issued by the combined High Court dated 30.12.2015 in W.P.No.42529 of 2015. However, the said Municipality has not passed any orders. 14. Insofar as the other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.4 has no jurisdiction or authority to issue the impugned notice by virtue of Section 6 of the APCR Act is concerned, the very same ground was raised by the petitioner in earlier W.P.No.42529 of 2015 and the same was not acceptable. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned notice dated 23.04.2016 issued by respondent No.4 is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. 15. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned notice dated 23.04.2016 issued by respondent No.4 is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. It is needless to observe that this order will not preclude the respondent Nos.3 and 4 from initiating proceedings in accordance with law, if so they are aggrieved. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.