The main legal point established in the judgment is that the period for commencing construction should be extended due to the pending approval of the building plan, and the principle of suspension of limitation in cases of statutory disability should be applied.

( 1 ) BY this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13-9-1994, passed by the district magistrate, shimoga, whereby, the district magistrate cancelled the no objection certificate dated 29-12-1992, taking the view that the applicant has neither commenced the construction of the cinema house within a period of 12 months from the date of the no objection certificate nor has applied for extension of time under rule 28 (3) of the Karnataka cinemas (regulation) rules, 1971, after having remitted a sum of rs. 1000/- as fee to the government under a receipt for the same.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is the owner in possession of the land bearing sy. No. 19/3-b-2 of gopala village, shimoga district measuring 1877. 75 sq. Meters and he made the application to the district magistrate for the issue of a no objection certificate under the Karnataka cinemas (regulation) rules, 1971, for short (rules, 1971), to enable the petitioner to construct the cinema building. That the licensing authority after making All enquiries and having been satisfied with the compliance of the rules, 1971 by the petitioner, issued no objection certificate on 29-12-1992, vide annexure-a to this writ petition. Further, according to the petitioner's case, the petitioner moved the application for the approval of the building plan to the licensing authority as required by rule 30 of the cinema rules, 1971, on 16-9-1993, as per annexure-b. That it appears the executive engineer, shimoga, approved the plan subject to certain conditions and issued a letter on 18-9-1994, which is marked as annexure-d. The petitioner sent the electrical plan in respect of the said building to the respondent vide covering letter dated 7-8-1994. Thereafter, the matter remained pending with the authorities which had to grant approval under chapter 5 of the cinema rules, as so far no orders have been passed as per rule 32. That the petitioner could not commence the construction work without approval of the plan and issuing of licence, so, he made a representation to extend the period of the no objection certificate vide annexure-f on 10-8-1994. On 3-9-1994, vide annexure-g, the petitioner was informed that the applications submitted by the petitioner for extension of time of no objection certificate was rejected and the no objection certificate dated 29-12-1992, has been cancelled. Feeling aggrieved from that order, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the constitution of india.

( 3 ) ON behalf of the opposite party, the district magistrate, who is the licensing authority, appearance has been put by Sri n. Devadas, learned government advocate. I have heard the petitioner's counsel Sri m. p. eshwarappa, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri k. g. naik, an advocate of this court as well as Sri n. Devadas, the learned government advocate.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended before me that annexure-g to this writ petition suffers from as refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested on one hand and on the other, cancelling no objection certificate really is illegal and submitted that a reading of the necessary provisions will lead to the conclusion of law to the effect that no construction of cinema can be made without permission being granted by the licensing authority in view of section 11 of the Karnataka cinemas (regulation) act and the rules. That in the matter of construction of the building for exhibition of cinemas etc. , it has been provided that an application for permission to construct the cinema building or to use a place for cinematograph is to be made and necessary permission to be obtained from the licensing authority. That the Rules framed thereunder have got to be read along with the principal sections and nothing which runs counter to the intention of the legislature as indicated particularly in section 11 can be said to nullify the right of the petitioner in this regard. Th