Hon’ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.—Writ Petition No. 9120 (MB) of 2015 is directed against the notice dated 26.9.2015 coupled with the relief for renewal of the petitioner’s licence granted for running a cinema hall.

2. Writ Petition No. 10127 (MB) of 2015 is directed against the final orders dated 15.10.2015 (Annexures 1 and 2) passed in furtherance of the notice dated 26.9.2015 which was assailed in the earlier writ petition, mentioned above coupled with relief for renewal of cinema licence.

3. Both the writ petitions have arisen under a similar set of facts and circumstances, therefore, were heard together and are being decided by a common judgement.

4. The petitioner, a licencee for running a cinema hall in the name of ‘Bharat Palace’, was issued a notice dated 26.9.2015 by the Assistant Entertainment Commissioner, Sitapur i.e. respondent No. 2 for removal of a mobile tower that has been admittedly installed on the roof of the cinema hall in relation to which an application for renewal of licence had been applied for.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that different stands at variance with each other were taken by the respondents from time to time for directing him to remove the cellular tower resting on the roof of the cinema hall. Initially the notice was issued indicating the tower being unsafe to the structure of the building and subsequently an objection raised by the fire department became the cause, and lastly the notice was issued in public interest due to exposure of harmful radiations. The notices which were purportedly issued in exercise of the powers under Rule 18 of the U.P. Cinematograph Rules, 1961, were duly replied by the petitioner. The reply submitted by the petitioner was not considered favourably and by means of the impugned order, the tower was directed to be removed failing which it has further resulted into refusal on the part of the respondents to renew the petitioner’s cinematograph licence.

6. Counter-affidavit has been filed in Writ Petition No. 10127 of 2015 whereas no counter-affidavit was filed in the writ petition directed against the notice dated 26.9.2015.

7. The respondents have taken a clear stand in the counter-affidavit on the premise of Rule 18 of U.P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951 according to which the use of cinema building for the purpose other than that of cinema is impermissible and on account of violation on the part of the petitioner to use the building for other purpose, the impugned action is sought to be justified.

8. The entire defence adopted in the counter-affidavit rests on the premise of Rule 18 of the U.P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951 which for ready reference is reproduced below:

“18. Prohibition of use of building for purposes other that of a cinema—No portion of a cinema shall be used as a restaurant, boarding house, shop, factory, workshop or manufactory, or for the purposes of storage or for the preparation or sale of food, drink except with the sanction of Licensing Authority and subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be imposed and specified by him in this behalf nor shall any portion of the cinema be used for residential purpose by day or night.”

9. In the light of aforementioned rule, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that neither the notice issued on the strength of the aforesaid rule is within the true scope of the statutory provisions, nor the validity of the impugned order can be justified on the strength of the aforesaid rule, particularly in a situation where the petitioner was granted deemed permission to install the cellular tower on the basis of making requisite compliance of the Government order dated 10.12.1999 i.e. submission of the sanctioned plan and fulfilling other requisite formalities including deposit of prescribed fee. According to the Government order dated 20.12.1999, permission to install a mobile tower would be deemed to have been granted once a person files the sanction