Andhra Pradesh High Court Declines Stay On Govt Memo Permitting Mythri Movie Makers To Collect Higher Rate For Premiere Of Pushpa 2 Movie

A PIL has been initiated in the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the hiked rate of tickets for the movie Pushpa-2 that premiered on 4^th of December.

The Public interest litigation that was instituted by an aggrieved citizen S. Venkateshwarlu. Venkateshwarlu challenged not only the hiked rates but also challenged the movie being screened on all available slots and prayed that an inquiry be ordered by the Income Tax department and Directorate of Enforcement to find out whether the production cost was more than 100 crores or not.

The petitioner pleaded that the actions of the State in permitting the private respondents to air the movie at all slots available, at a higher fee, for a period beyond 10 days was in stark contravention of the GOMS No, 13 dt. 3^rd March, 2022.

While dismissing the PIL, the division bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati noted that as per the contentions of the petitioner, the hiked rate of movie tickets was only for the premiere show, being aired within the 10 days stipulated in the GoMs No. 13.

“Insofar as the rates for the tickets of the premier show is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy us as to how 4 the fixation of the rates for the premier show in regard to high-budget films in any manner contravenes G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 07.03.2022.”

Regarding the contention that the movie was being screened in all available slots, in contravention of GO 13, which stipulated that at least one small-budget movie should be screened between 9 a.m. and 11 p.m.; the Bench noted that the petitioner failed to show that the screening of Pushpa-2 was clashing with the airing of a small-budget film.

“Insofar as screening of 5 shows is concerned, on a daily basis, while learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the same is impermissible inasmuch as at least one show out of the 5 shows ought to have been reserved for a low-budget film in terms of G.O.Ms.No.13, yet, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to place anything on record to show that there is a clash between the release of the present film and any other low-budget film during the said period. In the absence of any such material on record, we cannot interfere with the memo impugned on that ground.”

The Bench regarded the prayer urging inquiry to establish whether or not the movie did incur an expenditure of over 100 crores, thus classifying it as a 'super-high budget film' as 'made casually and without there being any basis.' Thus, the prayer to that extent was rejected.

While adjourning the matter to 29^th December, the Bench clarified that as per the GO 13 and previous judgements passed by the Bench, a hiked fee would only be permitted for 10 days from the release of the movie.

S Venkateshwarlu v. Union of India

Wp(Pil) 198 of 2024

Counsel for petitioner: Gundala Siva Prasada Reddy

Counsel for State: S. Pranathi, Spl. Government Pleader

Click Here To Read/Download Order