JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra, J. - The petitioners want that the permission granted by the District Magistrate of Etah, for constructing a cinema building by the third respondent be quashed and for a direction to the District Magistrate to decide the petitioners application for such permission in accordance with the law.

2. It appears that the petitioner are carrying on the business of exhibition of cinema films in the town of Kasganj, and that is the only cinema house in the town.

3. The petitioners wanted to built another cinema hall. For that purpose they purchased a piece.of land in June, 1962 and another piece of land in August. 1962. On 25-8-1962 they made an application for permission to construct a building under rule 3 of the U. P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951. The application was made to the District Magistrate, Etah, who was the licencing authority. Respondent No. 3 had also made a similar application to the District Magistrate. On 5-2-1963 the District Magistrate rejected both the applications. The order stated that because of national emergency it will be difficult to procure huge quantity of building materials which would be needed for constructing such a building. Kasganj is