( 1 ) THE petitioner who is manager of Shivaji Talkies, Hunsur, has filed this writ petition on 22-11-1969, praying that the order dated 11-11-1969 made by the first respondent who was described as the District Magistrate and the licensing Authority, Mysore District, Mysore, be quashed, and, for the issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the first respondent not to issue any licence to the second-respondent. Later, the petitioner filed an application on 29-11-1969 seeking further relief? praying that "no Objection Certificate' granted by the Additional district Magistrate and the Licensing Authority be quashed, and, for the issue of a direction that the licence issued by the Additional District magistrate and the Licensing Authority also be quashed. The petitioner was permitted to amend his earlier application so as to be in accordance with the second application made on 29-11-1969. So that, the question before us relates to the validity of the grant of the no-objection certificate and the licence granted by the first respondent, the Additional District magistrate and the Licensing Authority. ( 2 ) ON 3rd September 1969, the first respondent published a notice under rule 7b of the Mysore Cinematograph Rules, 1946 (hereinafter called the rules), inviting objections for the grant of a "no objection certificate" in favour of the second respondent for the location of a touring cinema at hunsur town of Mysore District on the Municipal site called 'muneswara kaval Land'. Several objections were filed before 18-9-1969, the notified date. One of the objectors was Sivabhusana Mudaliar and a copy of his objection petition is marked in this petition as Ext. B dated 13-9-1969. The other one was under Ext. D by P. R. Venkataramaiah, which is also dated 13-9-1969. The petitioner also filed his objections on 12-9-1969, copy of which is marked as Ext. E. Except the petitioner, the other objectors withdrew their objections. ( 3 ) FROM the records made available to us by the learned High Court government Pleader and pertaining to the grant of the 'no objection certificate' in favour of the second respondent which has been challenged in this writ petition, it is found that an order is made on 10-11-1969 in the following terms :"in view of the facts now reported, the camp is allotted to M/s. Girijashankar Touring Talkies and ADM, may- take further action. " ( 4 ) IT may be mentioned here that the District Magistrate has passed this order after he received the communication from the Town Municipal council, Hunsur, dated 7th November 1969, in response to his letter dated 6-11-69. By this communication of 7th November 1969, the first respondent was informed that all the Councillors who were present at the meeting held on 24-10-1969 have unanimously resolved that the Municipal land in muneswara Kaval may be allotted to the second respondent to run the cinema. It is only subsequent to this that the 'no objection certificate'-Ext. G was granted by the first respondent. It is mentioned by the petitioner that subsequently a licence has been granted in favour of the second respondent. No copy of the said licence or the order on the basis of which such licence has been granted is produced before us. Several grounds of objections have been taken by the petitioner in support of his contention that the first respondent should not have granted the no objection certificate to the second respondent. A preliminary objection has been taken by the Counsel appearing for the respondents against the petitioner being permitted to raise all the objections that he has set out in the affidavit filed in support of his petition. It is contended by them that it is not open to the petitioner to raise any contention other than those incorporated in the objections filed by him before the District Magistrate in response to the notification calling for objections. As mentioned earlier, a copy of the objection petition filed by the petitioner is marked as Ext. E. He raised the following objections :"1. That though this is the only permanent theatre in the hunsur town, it is working under heavy loss as the cine goers are very limited and this is not the business place nor there is floating population and the season will not be good for about 4 months in a year. 2. The touring talkies if it is pitched in the Muneswar kaval grounds, it will still more affect us as it is very nearer in about very few yards. Also the touring people will keep the competitive rates as their investment and expenditure are quite less than ours. They do not have the restriction on the seating capacity. Further they are not income-tax payers. Also the touring people will keep the competitive rates as their investment and expenditure are quite less than ours. They do not have the restriction on the seating capacity. Further they are not income-tax payers. " ( 5 ) IT is pointed out that the grounds now urged are not incorporated in Ext. E and that the petitioner should be confined only to Ext. E. In support of their contention reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in k. Jayaramappa v. District Magistrate, Chitradurga, (1968) 2 Mys. L. J. 280. wherein this Court has held that an objection to the grant of the no-objection certificate on a ground that was not taken before the District Magistrate cannot be raised for the first time in the writ petition. Further, it is held in the said decision that the omission on the part of the District Magistrate to consider an objection which was not raised before him does not affect his jurisdiction. In view of this decision, the petitioner has to confine his objections to those raised in Ext. E which have been set out already. Apart from the objections that he has mentioned in Ext. E, Sri S. K. Venkataranga lyengar, the learned Counsel appearirig for the petitioner raised other contentions which require to be considered. It is pointed out that the order for the grant of no objection certificate was made by the District Magistrate who had been impleaded as the first respondent in the first instance, but actually the Additional District Magistrate has issued the no objection certificate-Ext. G. ( 6 ) IT is contended that under the notification issued by the Government in exercise of its powers conferred by sub-sec. (2) of s. 10 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the State Government has appointed the Headquarters Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner of of Mysore District as the Additional District Magistrate, and therefore, it is the additional District Magistrate who should have exercised his discretion in granting the 'no objection Certificate' and in this case the Additional District magistrate has not exercised his discretion, but the order is made by the District Magistrate who was not competent to make the order by virtue of the notification. The contention implies that by the notificacation the powers of the District Magistrate ceased and they were vested in the Additional District Magistrate. The contention implies that by the notificacation the powers of the District Magistrate ceased and they were vested in the Additional District Magistrate. It appears to us that this contention cannot be sustained in view of the wording in the notification that the Additional District Magistrate appointed under the notification shall have all or any of the powers of a District Magistrate under the Code, or under any other law for the time being in force, as the State Government may direct. It cannot be contended that the powers vested in the district Magistrate was taken away by his notification. This notification vests another functionary to exercise concurrent powers, with the district Magistrate and the District Magistrate had powers to issue the 'no objection Certificate' and the Additional District magistrate too could have exercised the power. But as the district Magistrate had already exercised the power, the Additional district Magistrate merely granted the 'no Objection Certificate' implementing the order made by the District Magistrate. In this connection our attention is invited to the decision in Thakur Jaikrit Singh v. Sohan Raj air. 1953 Raj. 63 This decision has no bearing on the question arising in this case and is of no assistance to the petitioner. ( 7 ) SRI S. K. Venkataranga lyengar further submitted that the function which the Additional District Magistrate should have exercised was a quasi judicial function and he should not have been influenced by a direction of the District magistrate. In support of this contention reliance has been placed by him on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji (3 ). This decision does not apply to the facts of this case for the reason that the District Magistrate and the Additional district Magistrate have concurrent powers to exercise their discretion as to whether the no obiection certificate should be granted or not. The second aspect of Sri S. K. Venkataranga lyengar's argument is that the District Magistrate was influenced by a resolution of the Municipal council before making an order that the no objection certificate may be granted. In the decision of the Supreme Court above mentioned Commr. of police v. Gordhandas Bhanji AIR. 1952 SC. 16 it is a clear case where the Commissioner of Police who had absolute discretion in granting or refusing licence acted in accordance with the direction issued by the Government. In the decision of the Supreme Court above mentioned Commr. of police v. Gordhandas Bhanji AIR. 1952 SC. 16 it is a clear case where the Commissioner of Police who had absolute discretion in granting or refusing licence acted in accordance with the direction issued by the Government. In this case, it is not correct to say that the District Magistrate obeved the order of the Municipal Council. He merely took into consideration the resolution of the Municipal Council bearing on the question of allotment of the site in question for the purpose of a touring cinema. Therefore, this contention cannot be accepted. ( 8 ) THIS decision was also used for another purpose, namely, that the District Magistrate is a public functionarv and he should have taken all the objections raised before him in connection with the notification into consideration and he should not have omitted to take certain objections for the reason that those objections were withdrawn and no reasons are set out in his order. It is seen that the District Magistrate has not given any reason for the grant of the no objection certificate. The Counsel for respondents invited our attention to the decision of this Court in Writ petition No. 1622 of 1960, WP. 1622 of 1960. holding that it is not necessary for the District magistrate or the Licencing Authority to set out the reason for the grant of the no objection certificate. Reference is made to Explanation to 7c of the rules. It provides that the Licensing Authority shall himself, in his discretion dispose of the application for the issue of a 'no Objection Certificate'. ( 9 ) IT is further observed that what is contemplated by this Rule is the satisfaction of the District Magistrate on the material placed before him. In this case, the District Magistrate has come to a conclusion on the basis of the material available to him that the 'no Objection Certificate' should be granted It is further submitted that the District Magistrate should have taken all the objections raised before him before granting the no objection certificate. Our attention is invited to the provisions of Rule 65 (2) of the rules. This provision applies to grant of licence and not to the grant of 'no Obiection Certificate'. Our attention is invited to the provisions of Rule 65 (2) of the rules. This provision applies to grant of licence and not to the grant of 'no Obiection Certificate'. Even otherwise the District Magistrate was not bound to consider all the objections raised before him when they were all withdrawn. The position was that there were no objections before him yards 'no Objection Certificate' can be granted Further, no objection has been raised that no such plan has been furnished by the second respondent at the time the application for the grant of the 'no Objection Certificate' was filed before the first repondent. Therefore, we do not see any valid reasons to quash the no objection certificate granted by the first respondent. ( 10 ) THE petitioner has in addition asked for a direction that the licence issued by the first respondent following the no objection certificate should also be quashed. The grant of the licence after the no objection certificate is granted is governed by Rules 62 (2) and 65 (2) of the Rules. Before the licence is granted, the person to whom the 'no Objection Certificate' is granted should produce a true copy of the 'no Objection Certificate' issued under Rule 7 and is also required to produce a certificate from the Electrical inspector. After these requisites are complied with the licensing authority makes an order granting or refusing the licence. As we mentioned already, no order made by the District Magistrate under Rule 65 (2) has been produced in this case. Further the relief for cancellation of the licence has been sought for the reason that the first respondent has issued the licence to the second respondent following the 'no Objection Certificate. ( 11 ) AS we have held that the no objection certificate is valid, the petitioner would not be entitled to the relief quashing the licence for these reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed with costs of the second respondent's Advocate Advocate's fee Rs. 250. 00. --- *** --- .