JUDGMENT Pathak, J. - By this and the connected petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners pray that the order relaxing the operation of-Rule 7 (2) (a) (i) and the consequent grant of it certificate under Rule 3 (3) of the U. P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951 in favour of the third respondent be quashed and the State of Uttar Pradesh and the District Magistrate, Agra, be directed not to allow the third respondent to construct a Cinema Hall on the site. 2. The facts briefly are these. In the Cantonment of Agra lies a piece of land with a building constructed to one side of it. The premises are known as No. I Gwalior Road, and are owned by the third respondent, Messrs Alopi Prasad and Sons (Private) Ltd. The compound is bounded on the one side by Ajmer Road and on the other by Gwalior Road. Behind this land lies the compound of St. Anthony's Day School. Across the Gwalior Road and somewhat to one side lies the compound of St. George's High School. 3. The third respondent decided upon the construction of a modern air- conditioned cinema hall in the premises No. 1, Gwalior Road, the construction being intended on that part of the land immediately facing Gwalior Road. On June 6, 1959 an application was made to the Military Estates Officer, Agra for his sanction for the grant of a lease of the land for the purposes of constructing the Cinema Hall. The Commander of the Station Headquarters, Agra Cantonment, by his letter dated June 29, 1960, declared that he had no objection to the construction of an air-conditioned Cinema hall in the compound of the said premises. Objection was raised by the petitioners, St. George's High School and St. Anthony's Day School, and it appears that an attempt was made by the third respondent and the military authorities to resolve the objections. On November 1, 1961 the Brigade Station Commander wrote to the Head Quarters, Meerut Sub-Area, stating that St. Objection was raised by the petitioners, St. George's High School and St. Anthony's Day School, and it appears that an attempt was made by the third respondent and the military authorities to resolve the objections. On November 1, 1961 the Brigade Station Commander wrote to the Head Quarters, Meerut Sub-Area, stating that St. George's High School was situated across the Gwalior Road and that the third respondent had formally agreed to comply with a number of conditions, among them being that they would raise the height of the wall of the cinema compound up to 9 feet, that the cinema hall would be sully air-conditioned and sound proof, that proper space would be provided for car parking within the cinema compound and that in case the third respondent failed to comply with any of those conditions the Station Commander would have the right to forbid the functioning of the cinema. He recommended that the third respondent should he permitted to build a cinema hall. On July 23, 1964 the third respondent wrote to the District Magistrate, Agra pointing out that both St. George's High School and St. Anthony's Day School functioned throughout the year up to 1.30 p.m. only and the operation of the cinema would not interfere with the functioning of the schools, and that as it was proposed that the building should be sound proof and air conditioned he prayed that the authorities might relax the operation of Rule 7 of the U. P. Cinematograph Rules 1951. The District Magistrate by a letter dated August 12, 1964 recommended the case of the third respondent to the State Government and pointed out that as the cinema hall would be air-conditioned and sound proof and a proper parking place would he provided he had no objection to the grant of exemption from the operation of Rule 7 (2) (a) (i). Then on May 30, 1967 he wrote. again to the State Government indicating the desirability of relaxing the restrictions contained in Rule 7 (2) (a) (i) . On September 27, 1967 the State Government wrote to the District Magistrate stating that the Governor was pleased to relax the provisions of Rule 7 (2) (a) (i) in respect of the cinema building to be constructed by the third respondent on Gwalior Road. On September 27, 1967 the State Government wrote to the District Magistrate stating that the Governor was pleased to relax the provisions of Rule 7 (2) (a) (i) in respect of the cinema building to be constructed by the third respondent on Gwalior Road. Accordingly, on November 27, the Additional District Magistrate issued a certificate in favour of the third respondent according permission under Rule 3 (3) for the construction of the cinema hall as proposed. Meanwhile on December 26, 1966 the Military Estates Officer had already conveyed the sanction of the Government of India in the Ministry of Defence to the lease of the land for constructing a cinema hall. 4. The management of the two schools took serious objection to the proposal to construct the cinema hall and lodged protests with the district authorities. Then they filed the present writ petition (No. 3571 of 1968). The convicted writ petition (No. 625 of 1968) was filed by Sri R. L. Misra and a number of other individuals. The petitions came on for hearing before our brother Gulati and, in the opinion that there was a conflict between earlier decisions of this Court, he referred the petitions to a larger Bench. 5. Before considering the contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate, we think, to set out the relevant provisions of the U. P. Cinematograph Rules. Rule 3 provides : "3. Application for constructing a building- (1) A person desirous of constructing a permanent building to be used for cinematograph exhibition shall submit an application specifying the site on which the proposed building is to be constructed together with a plan and specifications thereof to the officer authorised in this behalf by Government. (2) The plan mentioned in the aforesaid sub-rule shall contain the elevations and sections of the buildings, the proposed electrical installations, arrangements for ventilation, sanitation and parking of vehicles and the position of the premises in relation to adjacent premises and public through fares on which the building abuts, within a radius of one furlong. (3) The Licencing Authority may, if it is satisfied that the site, plans and specifications fully conform to the rules, grant to the applicant it certificate signifying his approval thereto. The period within which the construction shall be completed shall also be stated in the Certificate." Rule 7 provides : "7. Condition for granting and renewing a licence. (3) The Licencing Authority may, if it is satisfied that the site, plans and specifications fully conform to the rules, grant to the applicant it certificate signifying his approval thereto. The period within which the construction shall be completed shall also be stated in the Certificate." Rule 7 provides : "7. Condition for granting and renewing a licence. (1) No licence shall be granted or renewed in favour of any person unless (i) he or his agent appointed for the purpose referred to in Rule 2 (vi) is residing in the city, town or area within whose limits the cinematograph exhibition is intended to be given, and (ii) the Licensing Authority is satisfied that the requirements of these rules have been fully complied with. (2) No building except the one already licensed before the first day of December, 1962, shall be licensed for cinematograph exhibition, if it is situated- (a) (i) within a radius of one furlong from a recognised Secondary School or any residential institution attached thereto, or within a radius of two furlongs from any other recognised educational institution (other than primary school) or any residential institution attached thereto; or (ii) within a radius of one furlong from a public hospital with a large indoor patient ward; or (iii) within a' radius of one furlong from an orphanage containing one hundred or more inmates; or (b) in any thickly populated residential area which is either exclusively residential or reserved or used generally for residential as distinguished from business purposes. For the purpose of this rule, the District Magistrate shall, subject to the general control of the Government determine what is a hospital, a recognised educational institution, a large indoor patient ward or a thickly populated residential area, and his decision shall be final and conclusive; Provided that the District Magistrate may for sufficient reason and with the prior approval of the Government, relax this rule or any part thereof in any case and specially in the case of cinema halls already completed or nearing completion with the approval of the local authorities prior to the enforcement of these rules; Provided further that in relaxing this rule or any part thereof the Government shall take into consideration the nature of the proposed building and whether or not it is sound-proof or is within a radius of 50 feet from any petrol pump or any shop or store dealing in highly combustible material or is air-conditioned." 6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that Rule 3 (3) contemplates that before granting a certificate thereunder for the construction of a building for cinematograph exhibition the restrictions contained in Rule 7 (2) must be imported, and inasmuch as those restrictions were not complied with the certificate granted to the third respondent was vitiated in law. The contention is opposed by learned counsel for the third respondent. Rule 7 provides for the granting and renewing of a licence for cinematograph exhibition, and sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 sets out a number of conditions which must be satisfied before the building can be so licenced. There is considerable controvery before us on the question whether the restrictions set out under Rule 7 (2) should be imported at the time when under Rule 3 (3) the question of granting a certificate arises. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that there is a difference of opinion between two Division Benches of this Court on the point, one being P. C. Hiteshi v. The State of U. P., Special Appeal No. 8 of 1957 by R. Dayal, A.C.J. and A.P. Srivastava, J. on July 15, 1957 and the other being Smt. Bhudevi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Special Appeal No. 1439 of 1967 decided by Oak, C.J. and B. Dayal, J. on July 11, 1967. It seems to us unnecessary to enter into this controversy because we are satisfied that even if it be assumed that the restrictions set out in Rule 7 (2) (a) (i) must be imported into Rule 3 (3) and considered for the purpose of granting a certificate for the construction of a cinema hall, that question does not arise in view of the circumstance that the District Magistrate has, with the approval of the Government, relaxed the requirements of Rule 7 (2) (a) (i) . The objections raised to the grant of a certificate under Rule 3 (3) were based upon the requirements of Rule 7 (2) (a) (i) , and the District Magistrate placed the fads relating to those requirements before the State Government in the correspondence mentioned above. He also set out the circumstance.i favouring a relaxation of Rule 7 (2) (a) (i) . With all this material before it the State Government conveyed its approval to the relaxation of Rule 7 (2) (a) (i) . We have no doubt that the State Government applied its mind to the second proviso of Rule 7 (2) also and took into consideration the nature and the purpose of the building, and that it was to be sound-proof and air-conditioned. There was no suggestion at any time that it was within a radius of 50 feet from any petrol pump or any shop or store dealing in highly combustible material. 7. The District Magistrate apparently felt there was sufficient reason to relax the Rule. That appears from his letters to the State Government in which while recommending the case of the third respondent to the State Government he has adverted to various matters favouring the relaxation of the restrictions contained in Rule 7 (2) (a) (i). 8. We are satisfied that the requirements for relaxing the provisions oI. Rule 7 (2) (a) (i) were fulfilled in the present case and that, therefore, it was not necessary for the District Magistrate, when granting the certificate under Rule 3 (3) , to enquire whether the restrictions contained in Rule 7 (2) (a) (i) were satisfied. 9. 8. We are satisfied that the requirements for relaxing the provisions oI. Rule 7 (2) (a) (i) were fulfilled in the present case and that, therefore, it was not necessary for the District Magistrate, when granting the certificate under Rule 3 (3) , to enquire whether the restrictions contained in Rule 7 (2) (a) (i) were satisfied. 9. It is then urged on behalf of the petitioners that at the stage when the grant of a certificate under Rule 3 (3) is considered it is only the restrictions contained in Rule 7 (2) which must be imported and the proviso to Rule 7 cannot enter into consideration for the purposes of Rule 3 (3). In our opinion. the contention is without substance. If the restrictions contained in Rule 7 (2) must be considered when granting a certificate under Rule 3 (3) the proviso contained in Rule 7 must also necessarily be considered. Rule 7 (2) sets out a number of conditions, but the operation of those conditions may be relaxed if the case falls within the provisos. The restrictions set out in Rule 7 (2) and the provisos constitute a single scheme. They are integral parts of the same scheme. If the scheme set out under Rule 7 (2) is to be imported when considering the grant of a certificate under Rule 3 (3), it must be the whole scheme and not a part of it only. 10. The petitioners then contend that relaxation of Rule 7 (2) is contemplated in those cases only where the building is under construction or has already been constructed. This contention must also be rejected. According to the plain terms of the proviso the Rule may be relaxed 'in any 'case', and especially so in the case of a cinema hall already completed or nearing completion. 11. Finally, it is urged for the petitioners that the Government did not apply an open mind to the question whether the Rule should be relaxed but it took a decision in the matter with a closed mind. We are not satisfied that the material on the record can sustain this contention and it is, therefore, rejected. 12. In our judgment, there is no merit in the case set up by the petitioners and, therefore, they are not entitled to any relief. As regards the connected petition (Civil Misc. We are not satisfied that the material on the record can sustain this contention and it is, therefore, rejected. 12. In our judgment, there is no merit in the case set up by the petitioners and, therefore, they are not entitled to any relief. As regards the connected petition (Civil Misc. Writ No. 625 of 1968), it was pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that as the same matter was being raised in the present petition (Civil Misc. Writ No. 3571 of 1968) no arguments would be advanced in that case. 13. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the third respondent that the petitioners in the two petitions have no locus standi to maintain the petitions. 14. This and the connected petition are dismissed with costs.