Judgment

DESAI, J.:- Respondent Raja Ram Jaiswal along with the members of his family (respondent for short) purchased premises No. 26/30, a plot of land with a small structure standing on it admeasuring 2978 sq., yds. situated at K. P. Kakkar Road, somewhere in March, 1970. The respondent desired to construct a cinema theatre on the plot of land after demolishing the existing structure. As a first step, he got prepared, the plans for a modern air-conditioned, sound-proof cinema building and got the same approved by the Local Municipal Corporation and the District Magistrate, Subsequently, on July 6, 1971, the respondent submitted an application as required by Rule 3 of the U. P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951 (1951 Rules for short) to the District Magistrate for obtaining a certificate signifying his approval of the site selected for constructing a permanent building to be used for cinematograph exhibition. Before granting the requisite certificate the District Magistrate as the Licensing Authority has to be satisfied that the requirements of the 1951 Rules have been fully complied with. Inter alia it must be satisfied that any. recognised educational institution (other than primary school) or any residential institution attached thereto is not situated within a radius of 75 metres from the proposed cinema building. There were other conditions to be satisfied but this one is being referred to by us because the allegation is that this condition has been contravened. It also appears that before granting the requisite certificate, with a view to giving an opportunity to the public in the locality to express their opinion for or against the grant of the certificate, if they so desired a public notice was issued specifying the request by the respondent for issue of a certificate of approval of the site for constructing a cinema theatre. An organisation called The Hindi Sahitya Sammelan (Sammelan for short) alone submitted its objection. The District Magistrate referred the application of the respondent to the State Government. The State Government directed the District Magistrate to carefully examine the matter and determine whether it would or would not be in public interest to grant the certificate, There ensued some correspondence between the District Magistrate and the State Government, the query centering round the question whether the Sammelan was a recognised educational institution as envisaged by Rule 7 (2)(b) of 1931 Rules. The District Magistrate in his letter dated March 24, 1972 inter alia stated that Sammelan can neither be styled as an educational institution nor a residential institution within the contemplation of Rule 7(2)(b) because it is an institution wedded to and working for the propagation of Hindi language and even though it may provide some research facility on its campus, it has no regular programme of class teaching. The District Magistrate was also of the opinion that having regard to all the relevant circumstances, the construction of cinema building at the proposed site was not against public interest. On the contrary according to him, a modern beautiful fully air-conditioned cinema building apart from adding to the beautification of the city would enrich the coffers of the State exchequer in the form of entertainment tax. He concluded by observing that in his opinion public interest will not be adversely affected if the permission is granted for construction of the cinema house at the proposed site and that he proposed to grant the permission. Accordingly, on March 28, 1972, the District Magistrate informed the respondent that with reference to his application dated July 6, 1971 in connection with the construction of a cinema house over Plot No. 26, Crosthwaite Road_ the site plans checked and signed by the Executive Engineer, P. W. D. Allahabad have been approved on certain conditions including that the construction of the cinema house will be completed within two years from the date of the issue of the