Judgment :- VEERASWAMI 1. These cases come up before us on reference by Ismail. J, because the validity of Rule 79-A(3)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1957. has been challenged, The third respondent applied for a no-objection certificate to locate a semi-permanent cinema in S. No. 217, part of Singammalpuram in Srivilliputhur town and this was granted to him. The petitioner having unsuccessfully opposed the grant, seeks to have the order of the Board of Revenue quashed on the main ground that Rule 79-A(3)(a), we mentioned, is void for its uncertainty. The Rule as it stood before its amendment read: “Semi Permanent cinemas shall be permitted only in urban areas having a total population of less than one lakh and also not having more than three permanent cinemas already functioning in such urban areas.” On 3rd June 1970, the Rule was amended substituting the words “only in urban” by the words ‘in area and also substituting the words “such urban areas” by the word “locality”. Prim facie the word “area” may appear to be vague and uncertain, in the absence of a definition delimiting an area or areas. But, in the context of the Rules and the provisions of the Act, we are of opinion that “area” in the Rule means the limits of a Panchayat or a revenue village or a township or town or a city. S. 5 of the Madras Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955. itself uses the expression “locality.” in Cl. (d) and the words “locality or localities” in Cl. (e). Rule 3 (g) speaks of “Local Authority” which means in the city of Madras, the Council of the Municipal Corporation of Madras and in an area in a District, the Municipal Council or the Township Committee or the Panchayat having jurisdiction over the area. The proviso also uses the word “area” with reference to the Panchayat Union Council having jurisdiction, where there is no Panchayat functioning. It seems to us, therefore, that when the word ‘area” is used in Rule 79-A(3)(a), the context, it means, as we already mentioned a revenue village, township, town or city. The whole purpose of the Rule as we think, is to forbid semi permanent cinemas in areas, in the sense we have understood the expression, having a total population of more than one lakh. The whole purpose of the Rule as we think, is to forbid semi permanent cinemas in areas, in the sense we have understood the expression, having a total population of more than one lakh. In order to qualify for the establishment of a semi-permanent cinema, the area should have a population less than one lakh and should not have more than three permanent cinemas fuctioning. In our opinion, therefore, there is no uncertainty or vagueness about the use of the word “areas” in the place of the words “only in urban area” in the old Rule, and no question of invalidity of the amended rule can arise. 2. It is then contended far the petitioners that accepting the interpretation of the word “area” in the Rule as mentioned above, the rule has been misapplied, in as much as the authorities below have not only taken into account the population of the municipal town of Srivilliputhur namely, about 54,000 but also the population in the neighbouring villages who may be expected to resort to cinemas. In our view the contention has no merit. Two things should be kept apart One is that R. 79-A(3)(a) has nothing to do with the adequacy contemplated by S. 5(a). The second is that R. 79-A(3)(a) enjoins that a semi-permanent cinema shall be permitted only if certain conditions are satisfied, namely, (1) that the total population in the areas should be less than one lakh and (2) that there shall not be more than three permanent cinemas already functioning in the area. If in applying this rule the authorities below had taken into account not only the population in the municipal town of Srivilliputur but also the population in the surrounding villages who resort to cenemas and on that basis calculated the population as exceeding one lakh and refused permission to establish a semi permanent cinema, it would have been in contravention of the Rules. But that is not the case. The town does have a population not less than one lakh and does not have more than three permanent cinemas. The Rule is, therefore, satisfied. Even so, the authorities have still to say whether S. (5)(1) is satisfied as to adequacy and that is what the authorities below had in mind, when one or the other of them made reference to the mills serving the town and also the people in the surrounding villages. 3. The Rule is, therefore, satisfied. Even so, the authorities have still to say whether S. (5)(1) is satisfied as to adequacy and that is what the authorities below had in mind, when one or the other of them made reference to the mills serving the town and also the people in the surrounding villages. 3. Our attention was invited to Harakchand v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1453 But that case was decided in respect of the provisions not identical to those of the Act and the rules we are concerned with and in the light of different facts. 4. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed. No costs.