Rule 14 constitutionally valid.

S. Mohan, J.

1. The facts leading to the writ petition lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner is the proprietor of Raja Touring Talkies. He was granted a 'C Form licence by an order of the Collector of North Arcot made in K. 162898 2of 1979, dated 14th January, 1980. As the rule then stood, namely 109 (1-A), the licence period was three years. Therefore, the, validity of the licence was only up till 15th January, 1983. Though the licence period was three years then, presently, by reason of the amendment made in G.O.Ms. No. 461, dated 24th February, 1982, it is five years. The licence is to be granted initially for a period of one year and then renewed each year. This renewal is subject to one of the most important conditions that after inspection as contemplated under Rule 113, the licensing authority is satisfied that the site and the Building continue to conform to the relevant rules and the building is structurally sound. I should at once state that this rule is peculiar to travelling cinemas1 since Part VII of the Tamil Nadu cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1957, deals only with travelling cinemas. The petitioner's cinema is one such. For the take, of completion, it may be added that for permanent cinemas, there is no such periodic renewal after inspection. This constitutes a vital distinction which has to be borne in mind throughout lest one is likely to get confused while dealing with this matter. Be that so. The 2nd respondent is the: managing partner of a permanent theatre (Thiru Murugan Theatre). Pursuant to a 'no objection' certificate granted earlier, he completed the construction of the theatre and applied for a 'C' Form licence on 3rd December, 1981. After this, on 16th December, 1981, the petitioner applied for renewal of his licence. That became necessary in view of the following contingencies. The licence originally granted which was to expire as per the old rule by 15th January, 1983 (as per the present rule by 15th January, 1985) was not renewed beyond 9th November, 1981, since the roof of the auditorium and other structures were constructed with inflammable materials. The petitioner was required, as per the amended rule, to construct the same with non-inflammable materials. Therefore, the petitioner reconstructed the touring cinema with lite roof material and applied for the renewal of C Form licence on 16th December, 1981, for the remaining period. This renewal was granted on 20th January, 1982. The 2nd Respondent's 'C' Form licence was granted on 31st January, 1982, pursuant to which he commenced exhibition of cinema on 3rd February, 1982. While so, the petitioner applied again for his periodic renewal on 26th November, 1982. The 2nd respondent filed an objection that there is a clear violation of Rule 14(2) since the distance between the 2nd respondent's theatre and the petitioner's touring cinema was only 652 feet while the distance required is 1.609 kilometres under Rule 14(2). The writ petitioner contended that this objection cannot be taken note of because the 'C' Form licence was granted without any objection. Therefore, at the time of renewal, such an objection in relation to distance cannot be put forth. The Collector of North Arcot, by the impugned order made in R.D. is. No. 143943 of 1982, dated 22nd December, 1982, overruled the contention of the petitioner and rejected the renewal as prayed for, however, holding that the 'C' Form licence of the petitioner's touring cinema would not enure beyond 31st December, 1982. It is under these circumstances that the present writ petition for a certiorarified mandamus has come to be preferred to quash the order of the Collector and to consider the application for renewal of licence made on 26th November, 1982.

2. The contention in the writ petition is therefore as follows:

1. At the time of renewal, the prohibition in relation to distance as contained under Rule 14(2) cannot be raised. In support of this submission, reliance is placed on the decision, in H.H.