The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the increase in ticket prices for the Telugu movie Sankranthiki Vasthunam, starring Venkatesh, Aishwarya Rajesh, and Meenakshi Chaudhary. The PIL also sought an investigation into the film's production cost, which was estimated to exceed Rs. 100 crores.

Read also: Rape Is Not Mere Physical Assault, Granting Bail Must Consider Societal Interests: Andhra Pradesh High Court

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati ruled that since the scheduled screenings had already taken place, there was no point in addressing the matter. The Court stated:

"Be that as it may, considering the fact that there is no point in dealing with the aspect of enhancing the ticket prices for the film named Sankranthiki Vasthunam, as the scheduled shows have already been telecast, this Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Public Interest Litigation is dismissed."

Read also: Court's Delay in Urgent Notice Defeats Purpose of Order 39 Rule 1 CPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Regarding the request for an investigation into the film's production cost, the Court emphasized that such matters fall within the executive’s jurisdiction and that investigating agencies alone can decide whether an inquiry is warranted. The Court observed:

"It is not viable in the writ Court to order the initiation of an investigation as that function clearly lies in the domain of the executive and it is up to the investigating agencies themselves to decide whether the material produced before them provides a sufficient basis to launch an investigation."

Read also: Telangana HC Upholds Reservation Policy for Armed Forces Personnel’s Children, Excludes CAPF Wards

Background of the Case

The controversy arose after a memo was issued on January 8, which approved an increase in ticket prices and permitted additional screenings of the film. The memo allowed:

• Six shows on January 14.
• Five shows per day from January 15 to 23.
• An additional cost of Rs. 125 (including GST) for multiplexes and Rs. 100 (including GST) for single-screen theatres.

The petitioner, Mallavarapu Lakshmana Kumar, argued that this memo violated a government order (G.O.Ms.No.13) issued by the Home (General-A) Department on March 7, 2022. The order had fixed standard admission rates for theatres based on location and type. However, the petitioner claimed that the January 8 memo imposed an arbitrary pricing structure, disregarding the government's guidelines.

Read also: Andhra Pradesh High Court: Witness Deposing for Himself and Others with Common Defence Cannot Be Rejected

The petitioner further pointed out that in an earlier case (W.P.No.7094 of 2022), the High Court had stayed the implementation of the government order. Hence, the latest price hike was alleged to be unlawful and contrary to the previous court ruling.

The PIL sought the following reliefs:

• Revocation of the increased ticket prices for Sankranthiki Vasthunam and adherence to the March 7, 2022, government order.
• Recovery of excess ticket charges to be returned to the state exchequer.
• A proper investigation into the alleged quid pro quo production cost exceeding Rs. 100 crores.
• Action against the film’s producers for exaggerated promotional claims.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the PIL on two primary grounds:

1. Shows Had Already Been Telecast: The Court noted that by the time the petition was taken up, the scheduled screenings had already concluded. Therefore, ruling on ticket price hikes served no practical purpose."Moreover, in view of the stand taken by the Government that they are proposing to modify the G.O.Ms.No.13 Home (General-A) Department dated 07.03.2022, this Court is of the opinion that this petition has been, in fact, filed not on account of the interest of the public but only for purposes of getting publicity."
2. Lack of Merit in Investigating Production Cost: The Court found no prima facie evidence warranting an investigation into the film's budget. It observed that the petitioner’s claims were based on mere suspicions and lacked substantial proof."In the said circumstances, directing the Enforcement Directorate to investigate, in our view, is again an abuse of the process of the Court, as the petition is short of wild and sweeping allegations and there is nothing placed before the Court which in any way may be called to be prima facie evidence. The petitioner, thus, is attempting to seek a roving probe monitored by this Court into suspicions so entertained by the petitioners based on nothing but bald allegations. This is thus, certainly not a case warranting the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution."

Accordingly, the PIL was dismissed.

Case Name: Mallavarapu Lakshmana Kumar v. Union Of India and Others

WP(PIL) NO: 22/2025