Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal against the judgment of a learned judge of this Court allowing O.P. 1776 of 1973 to the extent of quashing Ext P2 order and declining to quash Ext. P3, on the ground that the writ petitioner has no locus standi to attack the same. The latter part of the order is the subject-matter of this appeal by the writ petitioner. 2. The writ appellant is a Medical Practitioner running a Nursing Home in Cannanore. The 5th respondent proposed to locate a temporary cinema in a shed in the neighbourhood of the appellant, as alleged, and sought for permission for the temporary construction. The appellant object on the ground that the location of the cinema close to the appellant's Nursing Home would constitute a nuisance to the Nursing Home and to the patients undergoing treatment there for various ailments. The Municipality (3rd respondent) granted the permission by order dated 4th April 1972; and the Municipal Council rejected the appellant's appeal by its order dated 31st May 1972. A further revision was preferred before the District Collector, who allowed it by Ext P-1 order dated 14th February 1973, and the appeal was remanded back to the Council for being heard and disposed of in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The Council again dismissed the appeal by Ext. P2 order dated 27th April 1973. 3. There were two suits, O. S.251 of 1972 and O. S.12/73, one by the appellant's brother, and the other by his wife, in respect of the proposed exhibition of the temporary cinema in the premises. The Munsiff, Cannanore had granted an injunction restraining the 3rd respondent from granting permission for the offending construction, in the brother's suit. The same was vacated after the respondents entered appearance. In the wife's suit (O. S.12 of 1973), a temporary injunction was issued restraining the 5th respondent from conducting the cinema in the temporary building. The same was vacated on appeal by the District Court in C. M. A. Nos. 5 and 6 of 1973. The same was vacated after the respondents entered appearance. In the wife's suit (O. S.12 of 1973), a temporary injunction was issued restraining the 5th respondent from conducting the cinema in the temporary building. The same was vacated on appeal by the District Court in C. M. A. Nos. 5 and 6 of 1973. The matter was carried up further to this Court in C. R. P. No. 405 and 431 of 1973; and by judgment dated 7th June, 1973, the revisions were allowed and an injunction was granted by this Court restraining the Municipality from granting the licence, and the 5th respondent from conducting the cinema till the final disposal of O. S.12 of 1973. We were informed that the suits have been decreed on 12th November 1973. 4. Meanwhile, the Government under R.19(a) of the Kerala Places of Public Resort R.1965, granted exemption for "sanction", to use the language of the rules) against the requirement of an all-round open space for the structure, of not less than 45 metres. Ext. P-3 is a copy of the order. The learned judge held that the appellant had no locus standi to.attack Ext. P-3 and dismissed the writ petition in so far as it related to the said relief. 5. We are concerned with the only question whether the decision of the learned judge that the petitioner has no locus standi to attack Ext. P3 order is correct. The learned judge considered the English decision in Buxton v. Minister of Housing and Local Government (1961) (1) Q. B. 278, the decision of the Supreme Court in Nagar Rice and Flour Mill's case AIR 1971 SC 246 =1970 (1) SCWR 627, and the decision of the Madras High Court in Ghula Mohideen Sahib v. The District Magistrate, Chengleput and others AIR. 1934 Mad. 545 and concluded that the direction contained in S.7 of the Kerala Places of Public Resort Act 1963 was only that the licensing authority should satisfy itself in respect of matters provided therein and that the same does not confer any right whatsoever on persons like the petitioner' who happened to be neighbouring owners against any order granting or refusing licence, or sanctioning or granting exemption. The learned judge, therefore, declined to go into the contentions on the merits of the order passed by the Government. 6. S.7 of the Kerala Places of Public Resort Act reads: 7. The learned judge, therefore, declined to go into the contentions on the merits of the order passed by the Government. 6. S.7 of the Kerala Places of Public Resort Act reads: 7. Grant of licence. (1) If the authority is satisfied (a) that the enclosed place or building may safely be used for the purpose of public resort or entertainment proposed; (b) that no objection arising from its situation, ownership, possession or the purpose proposed exists, he shall give the applicant a written licence, signed by him specifying the enclosures or building and the purpose for which it is to be used. Such licence shall be in such form and subject to the payment of such fee and conditions as the Government may from time to time by rule direct."' Rule 19 of the places of Public Resort Rules is as follows: "19. Conditions under which licence may be granted. No licence shall be granted under the Act for the use of any temporary building for public resort or entertainment unless: (a) the building is provided on all its sides with an open space, which, in no part thereof shall be less than 45 metres in width: Provided that the licensing authority with the sanction of Government or any officer authorised by Government in this Behalf may grant a licence for any such building with an open space of not less than six metres in width and in the case of buildings constructed as theatres even with less open space in fit cases; (b) the caves of the building have a height of not less than 2.5 metres; (c) every door-way in the building is not less than 2 metres in height and 1.5 metres in width." We are not strictly concerned in this appeal with the nature of the power conferred by S.7 of the Act, or the right, or the locus standi, if any, of a person objecting to the grant of a licence under the said section. We are really concerned with a more attenuated question of the grant of a 'sanction' or an exemption from the compliance with the requirement of the minimum all-round space, under R.19 of the rules. The discussion of the learned judge of the decision of the Supreme Court in Nagar Rice and Flour Mills's case AIR 1971 SC 246 =1970 (1) SCWR. The discussion of the learned judge of the decision of the Supreme Court in Nagar Rice and Flour Mills's case AIR 1971 SC 246 =1970 (1) SCWR. 627 and the decision in Ghula Mohideen Sahib's case AIR. 1934 Mad. 545 appear to be more apposite to the nature of the powers and the rights, if any, of an objector under S.7 of the Act. The observations of the learned judge relate to this aspect also, as well as to the grant of a sanction under R.19.We express no opinion on the nature of the power, or the rights, if any, under S.7 of the Act, for the simple reason that the same does not directly arise for consideration before us. 7. On the question as to whether the appellant has a locus standi to attack the order of the Government, granting an exemption or sanction under R.19 of the Act, we are inclined to think that he has none, But without a fuller consideration, we do not wish to express a final opinion, as we are satisfied that the order granting the sanction or exemption was proper, and not open to attack on the merits. 8. The appellant's counsel attacked the order on the ground that the same had not recorded or recited that the Government was satisfied that it was a "fit case" for grant of the exemption. This is quite unnecessary. This statutory requirement need not be expressly recited in the order. From the terms of the order, and the files which were produced before us (and made available to counsel for the petitioner also for examination) we have little doubt that the Government were satisfied on this aspect of the matter. It was then said that the only grounds taken into account by the Government in granting the sanction or exemption were that the revenues of the Municipality would increase from the exhibition of the cinema and that the minimum width of six metres of open space as contemplated in the proviso was satisfied. We are not prepared to agree that these are wholly irrelevant considerations. We are not prepared to agree that these are wholly irrelevant considerations. It was complained that the Government had omitted to take into account other relevant factors and considerations, such as that the grant of a new licence for a temporary cinema was forbidden under R.59(b) of the Cinema Regulation R.1958, and that the location of the cinema in the neighbourhood of a Nursing Home serving the needs of patients suffering from different types of ailments, was found to be a nuisance. We are afraid that the omission to take into account these considerations cannot vitiate the grant of the sanction under R.19. These considerations are to be taken into account by the licencing authority at the appropriate stage, and against its order the Government has been constituted as the revisional authority. If the Government did not advert to these aspects which might ultimately come up before it in revision, we do not think its order granting the sanction would be vitiated. We asked counsel for the appellant on what considerations, for instance, he would grant an application for sanction under R.19 if he were the requisite authority to do so (forgetting, of course, his role as Counsel speaking from his brief). We did not get any useful guidance. We are satisfied that Ext. P-3 order is not vitiated. We dismiss this appeal but make no order as to costs.