Judgment :- 1. The O.P. No. 317 of 1965 is by the proprietor, Lotus Talkies, Tellicherry, for a writ of Certiorari to quash the order, Ext. P1, of the respondent, the Municipal Commissioner, Tellicherry, in so far as it refused renewal of the licence granted for the petitioner's cinema beyond February 16, 1965, and for writs of Mandamus to compel the respondent to continue issue of licences to the petitioner and to dispose of his application, Ext. P2, dated February 10, 1965, in accordance with law. The material averments in the affidavit in support of the O.P. run thus: "I am the Proprietor of the Lotus Talkies, Tellicherry. The respondent herein granted to me a licence under the Kerala Cinema Regulations Act on 16-2-1964 after he was fully satisfied that I have substantially complied with all the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Thereafter the licence was being renewed from time to time and the present licence is valid up to 16-2-1965. The cinematograph apparatus and plant are installed in a permanent building for the purpose of cinematograph shows and that building is constructed for permanent use with stones, mud, mortar, cement and other non-inflammable materials. The roofing is of asbestos. The auditorium, that is, the place where accommodation is provided for the public to view the cinematograph exhibition is a thatched shed. My cinema therefore satisfies the definition of a permanent cinema as defined in R.3 (1) (f) of the Kerala Cinema (Regulation) R.1958. Under the said rules licence has to be issued under R.16 and licences shall be annual or temporary. I am entitled under the said rule to a grant of a temporary licence and the only limitation provided therein is that no licence should be granted at the time for a period exceeding six months, though it may be issued for a period of 9 months at a time when special reasons are recorded. As submitted by me already the respondent after he first issued the licence in 1964, has been granting renewals periodically, without any demur, because he was satisfied that the conditions stipulated by the Act and the Rules were complied with. The fact that he has been granting licence is also proof that my cinema is not a temporary cinema. As submitted by me already the respondent after he first issued the licence in 1964, has been granting renewals periodically, without any demur, because he was satisfied that the conditions stipulated by the Act and the Rules were complied with. The fact that he has been granting licence is also proof that my cinema is not a temporary cinema. When I filed an application on 8-2-1965 for the renewal of the licence he ordered renewal till 16-2-1965 by an order dated 10-2-1965, a copy of which is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P-1. In the said order it is stated for the first time that the licence cannot be renewed beyond 16-2-1965 because mine is a travelling Cinema and that I should stop exhibiting cinema shows at the premises on and from 17-2-1965. I submit that the respondent has come to the conclusion that my cinema is a travelling cinema without any basis whatsoever. From the facts stated above it will be clear that my cinema is a permanent cinema as defined under the Rules. Under such circumstances it is not possible for me to know as to how and under what circumstances the respondent came to the conclusion and that too without conducting any enquiry or without giving me an opportunity to state my case that my cinema is a travelling cinema. I submit that my cinema cannot in any sense of the term be termed a Travelling Cinema.... The respondent herein proceeding firstly on an erroneous impression that my cinema is a travelling cinema and secondly applying wrongly the provision which states that there shall be an interval of three months before the same site is again licenced after the period of one year, has inserted this direction in Ext. P-1, that I should stop exhibiting cinema shows as on and from 17-2-1965. I had submitted an application on 10-2-1965 to the respondent bringing to his notice these facts and contending my cinema is a permanent cinema within the definition of the said expression in the Rules. Without adverting to that application and without making any enquiry whatsoever and also without knowing the definition of a permanent cinema occurring in the rules the respondent has wrongly come to an erroneous conclusion that mine is a travelling cinema." 2. Without adverting to that application and without making any enquiry whatsoever and also without knowing the definition of a permanent cinema occurring in the rules the respondent has wrongly come to an erroneous conclusion that mine is a travelling cinema." 2. Along with the O.P., the petitioner has moved C.M.P. No. 1043 of 1965 for interim relief and Raman Nayar, J. has ordered thereon on February 15, 1965, "Notice. Interim order directing the respondent to deal with the case on the basis that the cinema is a permanent cinema." 3. C.M.P. No. 2508 of 1965 is by an intervener who sought to be heard in opposition to both the O.P. and the C.M.P. She is the proprietress of the Prabha Talkies, Tellicherry, who claims to be materially interested in the result of the above proceedings. According to her, the petitioner's cinema is a 'travelling cinema" which cannot, under law, be continued in one place for over a year at a stretch. 4. When this case was taken up last day - the 9th inst. - counsel for the intervener asserted that all the licences granted to the petitioner before the interim order of this Court were in respect of a travelling cinema under R.52 of the Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1958 - hereinafter called 'the Rules'; and thereupon I directed counsel for the petitioner to produce the prior licences. The papers now placed before me by counsel show clearly that the intervener's assertion is true. The petitioner started cinematograph exhibition at Tellicherry on February 17,1964. First he was granted a licence for 3 months, from February 17 to May 16,1964. The relative proceedings served on the petitioner show that that licence was granted "under R.52 of the Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1958", in respect of the "travelling cinema - Lotus Talkies". The petitioner had applied for and secured renewals of that licence several times. Such renewals were for short periods, from May 17 to August 8, 1964; from August 9 to November 7,1964; from November 8 to December 7,1964; from December 8 to January 7,1965; from January 8 to January 22,1965; from January 23 to February 11,1965; and lastly from February 12 to February 16, 1965, which completes one year from the date of commencement of the exhibition. (I am not referring here to the temporary permits issued to the petitioner as they have been superseded by regular licences mentioned above.) All the Proceedings relating to the renewals expressly referred to the petitioner's cinema as the "travelling cinema - Lotus Talkies" and the authority for grant of renewal as "Rule 52 of the Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1958". That rule reads: "52. The rules in this Part shall apply only to travelling cinematograph shows." The fact that the licences granted to the petitioner were in respect of a travelling cinema has not been disclosed in his petition or affidavit. The averments in Para.5 of his affidavit (quoted above) are apt - if not calculated - to create an impression that his cinema was treated for the first time as a "travelling cinema" to his surprise in the impugned order, Ext P-1, and that prior thereto it was reckoned as a "permanent cinema". The fact appears that, all along, his cinema has been reckoned as a "travelling cinema" only. 5. Ext. P-1 gives its ground for refusal to renew the licence granted to the petitioner thus: "Licence for a travelling cinema cannot be granted beyond the period of one year and there should be an interval of 3 months before the same site is again licensed." Counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the legality of the reason given, which is admittedly in accord with R.58 of the Rules that reads: "58. No building constructed of inflammable materials shall be licensed to exhibit shows in any place for a period longer than one year. There shall be an interval of three months before the same site is again licensed." The contention is that the petitioner's cinema is not a travelling cinema but is a permanent cinema and that therefore the reason given is not applicable to it. R.3 (f) of the Rules defines a ‘permanent cinema' as meaning "a cinematograph apparatus and plant installed in a permanent building for the purpose of cinematograph exhibition" and R.3(e) defines a ‘permanent building' as meaning a building which is constructed for permanent use with non-inflammable materials. R.3 (f) of the Rules defines a ‘permanent cinema' as meaning "a cinematograph apparatus and plant installed in a permanent building for the purpose of cinematograph exhibition" and R.3(e) defines a ‘permanent building' as meaning a building which is constructed for permanent use with non-inflammable materials. Relying on the above definitions, counsel for the petitioner Contends that, for a cinema to be styled a permanent cinema, it is enough if the enclosure in which the cinematograph apparatus and plant are installed is built of non-inflammable materials and that the condition of the auditorium where the public are admitted is immaterial in that respect. True, the word 'building', as such, is not defined in the Rules But there are indications in the Rules that 'building' in relation to a cinema licence means the entire premises of the theatre concerned. Part III of the Rules deals with the place of installation of the cinematograph apparatus, styling it as an "Enclosure". Part IV of the Rules deals with "Building" and there the auditorium is reckoned as part of the building. R.12 of the Rules is also clear in this regard as it provides: "12. No licence shall be granted under the Act in respect of any building unless (i) such building has a road frontage on the public thoroughfare upon which the site of such building abuts; (ii) suitable booking windows for the various classes are provided within the building...; (iii) there are suitable means of entrance and exit for the public in such frontage; .... I hold that for a cinema to be found a "permanent cinema" it is not enough if the enclosure for the cinematograph apparatus and plant is built of non-inflammable materials, but substantially the whole theatre should be built of such materials. The petitioner admits that the auditorium of his theatre 'is a thatched shed'; and the intervener elaborates it - without challenge by the petitioner - as "a temporary shed thatched with cadjan leaves and enclosed by bamboo mats". The petitioner's cinema has therefore to be found not a permanent cinema. It was therefore rightly classified by the respondent as a travelling cinema for purposes of the Rules. It must be remembered here that, when the petitioner started exhibition in 1964, only two kinds of cinemas were in recognition - permanent cinemas & travelling cinemas. Vide: R.59 of the Rules. 6. It was therefore rightly classified by the respondent as a travelling cinema for purposes of the Rules. It must be remembered here that, when the petitioner started exhibition in 1964, only two kinds of cinemas were in recognition - permanent cinemas & travelling cinemas. Vide: R.59 of the Rules. 6. Change of licence for a travelling cinema to one for a permanent cinema is not a merely formal affair. It depends on the performance or fulfilment of certain imperative conditions laid down by the Rules. An application for licence with the requisite plans and a treasury receipt for Rs. 150/- (inspection fee) has to be made 3 months before date, with copy to the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Wing, P.W.D.; and the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. and the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Wing, P.W.D., have to inspect the building and the installations and issue a Structural Soundness Certificate and an Electrical Certificate. It is admitted that none of such conditions have been complied with by the petitioner. (Ext. P2 cannot be an apology therefor.) In the circumstances, the interim order made on C.M.P. No. 1043 of 1965 (cited above) deserves to be dissolved forthwith and C.M.P. No. 2508 of 1965 to be allowed (though not for the reasons mentioned therein). 7. Counsel stressed the case only in regard to Ext. P1 and ignored that in regard to Ext. P2, mentioning that the latter was only an alternative case. Ext. P2 is an application dated February 10, 1965, by the petitioner before the respondent, stating: "...I have no intention to vave (take?) my apparatus from place to place. As it is the entire cinematograph apparatus of my theatre is enclosed in a permanent building. My talkies is a permanent cinema coming within the definition of R.3 (f) of the Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1958. Hence I request that my talkies is hereafter entitled to be considered as a permanent cinema and future licence may be granted to me as such from 17-2-1965." The words "hereafter" and "future licence" used in the second paragraph of Ext. P2 (see supra) are very significant. To me they appear to be clear admissions by the petitioner that his cinema was not, and has not been reckoned or dealt with as a permanent cinema upto February 16,1965; and that he desires it to be considered so from February 17,1965. P2 (see supra) are very significant. To me they appear to be clear admissions by the petitioner that his cinema was not, and has not been reckoned or dealt with as a permanent cinema upto February 16,1965; and that he desires it to be considered so from February 17,1965. That admission - I have no reason to suspect it to be incorrect - is enough to kill his case regarding Ext. P1. If his cinema started in 1964 was not a permanent cinema it must necessarily be a "travelling cinema" and must therefore be within the mischief of R.58 cited supra. Returning to Ext. P2: the prayer in the O.P. in regard thereto is for "a writ of Mandamus directing him (the Municipal Commissioner) to dispose of the application dated 10-2-1965 (Ext. P2) in accordance with law." No ground is made out why such an extraordinary prayer is made here. The application is dated February 10,1965; and this O.P. has been filed on February 12,1965, supported by an affidavit 'solemnly affirmed' on February 11. Petitioner cannot complain of any delay in the meanwhile. Counsel was therefore right in not pressing the relief claimed in respect of Ext. P2. 8. In the result, the O.P. is found to have no substance and to be misconceived. It is dismissed with costs; and the interim order made on C.M.P. No. 1043 of 1965 is dissolved. Dismissed.