( 1 ) THIS is a special appeal against a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing a writ petition. The dispute is about the licence to run a Cinema. A cinema house is owned by the appellant Sri Bharat Bhushan and three other persons namely, Bharat Bhushans father Sri manna Lal, his brother Dip Chand and mother Srimati Munga Devi. The cinema house was let out to a person by the name of Sri R. M. Modi of Bombay for a period of five years and then after the death of R. M. Modi the cinema was leased for a period of three years to Sri K. M. Modi, the brother of Sri R. M. Modi. The term of lease expired on 31-5-1950. There was no renewal of the lease but Sri K. M. Modi has continued to be in possession of the premises. A civil suit for the ejectment of Sri K. M. Modi (hereinafter referred to as Modi) was filed by two of the proprietors, the appellant and his mother Srimati Munga Devi. That suit is still pending. Two applications were made for the grant of a license to run the cinema, one by the proprietors and the other by Modi. The District Magistrate, however, declined to issue the license in favour of any party on the ground that till the civil suit is decided, no licence should be granted. Modi made a representation to the State Government and the State Government directed the issue of a license in favour of Modi by its order dated 31-10-1953. Thereupon an order for the issue of a license in favour of Modi was made by Sri P. C. Saxena the Cinema Magistrate and it was signed by the District Magistrate. In pursuance of this order a license was issued which appears to have been signed only by the Cinema Magistrate and not by the District Magistrate.

( 2 ) ON these facts, the appellant, as one of the Proprietors of the Cinema House, moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution alleging that the State Government had no jurisdiction to interfere with the exercise of the discretion by the District Magistrate in an individual case and that all that it could do was to regulate the exercise of his jurisdiction by general orders. He based his contention upon the language of Section 5 (3), Cinematograph Act (2 of 1918), which runs as follows: "subject to the foregoing provisions of this section, and to the control of the State Government, the licensing authority may grant licenses under this Act to such persons as it thinks fit, and on such terms and conditions and subject to such restrictions as it may determine".

( 3 ) IT was also alleged that the appellant was given no opportunity of placing his case before the state Government and that therefore the order directing the issue of the license to Modi was illegal, and lastly it was alleged that the District Magistrate not having signed the actual license it had no validity in the eye of law. On these allegations the appellant prayed for the following relief: that a writ of certiorari be issued calling for the record of the case and quashing the order passed on or about 23-10-1953 by the Cinema Magistrate for the issue of a license to Modi.

( 4 ) ON behalf of Modi, the facts were admitted but it was alleged that the order of the State government was perfectly justified under the provisions of Section 5 (3); Cinematograph Act, that no opportunity was required by the Act to be given to the appellant by the State Government that the absence of the signature on the licence by the District Magistrate was merely an irregularity and that the signature of Sri P. C. Saxena, Cinema Magistrate, was quite enough.

( 5 ) THE learned Single Judge refected the pleas raised by the appellant and dismissed the writ petition. Against that order this special appeal has been filed and the very three same points which were urged before the learned Single Judge have been raised before us.

( 6 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties we have come to the conclusion that there is no force in this appeal,

( 7 ) UNDER Section 5 (3), Cinematograph Act the licensing authority