( 1 ) SINCE the prayers made in all these three petitions are the same, they are disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) THE petitioners were applicants before the Dist Magistrate, respondent 2 in each of these cases, for the grant of a 'no Objection Certificate' to construct a perraanent cinema building. Their applications were refused on the ground that the sites in respert of which 'no Objection Certificate' were sought were situate within 400 mis from an existing permanent cinema building, and therefore, the certificates praved for could not be given. In rejecting the applications made by the petitioners, the authorities concerned relied upon Rule 27 (2) (h) of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971 as amended by the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) (first Amendment) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). The relevant part of Rule 27 reads as follows :" 27 (2) (b) Location of cinemas shall not be permitted within a distance of 400 metres from each other in towns and cities having a population of ten thousand and above: explanation: For the purpose of this sub-rule: (a) 'distance' shall be reckoned along the shortest pathway, lane, street or road connecting the two cinemas and generally used by the members of the public. (fa) 'place' means the area coming within the jurisdiction of the local authority concerned in the case of towns and cities having a population of ten thousand and above and in other cases an area within a radius of five kilometres from the centre of the local autority in which the cinema is proposed to be located" ( 3 ) CLAUSE (b) of Rule 27 (2) extracted above was promulgated on 16-4-1974 and published in the Karnataka Gazette dt. 25-4-1974. Three contentions are urged by Sriyuths A. Ananda Shetty, B. G. Sridharan and T. Narendra Kumar learned Counsel for the petitioners, in support of the petitions: (1) The Rule 27 (2) (b) is unconstitutional as it is inconsistent with art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. (2) The Government had no competence to make it; and (3) It does not serve the purpose of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The question whether the Rule is liable to be declared as unconstitutional on the ground that it contravenes Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constn cannot be gone into in these cases. The question whether the Rule is liable to be declared as unconstitutional on the ground that it contravenes Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constn cannot be gone into in these cases. The impugned Rule was enacted, as already mentioned earlier, in the year 1974 during the continuance of the state of emergency declared by the President on 3-12-1971. While a proclamation of emergency is in operation nothing in Art. 19 shall restrict the power of the state as defined in Part III of the Constn to make any law or to take any executive action which the State would but for the provisions contained in that part be competent to make or to take, but any law so made shall to the extent of the incompetency, case to have effect as soon as the proclamation ceases to operate, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before the law so ceas. es to have effect (vide Art. 358 of the Constn ). ( 4 ) THE proclamation of emergency declared on 3-12-1971 is followed by another proclamation of emergency declared on 26-6-1975. In the circumstances, it is not open to, the petitioners to contend 'that the Rule which, is impugned in these, petitions is unconstitutional on the ground that it offends Art. 19, (1) (g) of the Constn. The first contention, therefore, fails. The next question relates to the competence of the State Govt to promulgate the Rule. S. 7 of the Act provides that the. licensing authority may after consideration of the, matters set forth in Sec. 6 of the Act and. subject tq such rules as may be prescribed, by order, limit the number cf places in any area, in respect of which licence under the Act may be granted. S. 6 sots out the matters that have to. be takan into consideration by the licensing authority in deciding whether to. grant or to refuse a licence for establishing a cinema. They are- (a) the interest, of the public generally; (b) the suitability of the place where the cinematograph exhibitions are proposed to be given; (c) the adequacy of existing places for the exhibition off cinematograph films in the locality; and (d) the benefit to any particular locality of localities to be afforded by the' opening of a new place of cinematograph exhibition. ( 5 ) IT also requires the licensing authority to take into consideration any representation made by persons already giving cinematograph. exhibitions in or near the proposed locality or by any local authority or police authority within whose jurisdiction the place proposed to be licensed is situate or by any association interested in the giving of cinematograph exhibition. Section 19 (1) of the Act confers power on the State Govt to make, rules, to carry out the purposes of the Act generally. Sub-sec (2) of Sec. 19 specifies certain matters which could be regulated by rules. Clause (b) of sub-sec (2) of S. 19 empowers the State Govt to make rules providing for the conditions on the basis of which the number of cinemas in any place has to be determined under S. 7 of the Act. C1 (d) cf that sub-section authorises the Govt to make; rules providing for regulation of cinematograph exhibitions for securing public safety, a combined reading of S. 7 which requires the licensing authority to take into consideration matters set forth in S. 6 and the rules as may be prescribed while granting a, licence, S. 19 (l) and S. 19 (2) (b) and (d), establishes that 'the rule which is impugned in thes writ petitions, is not outside the scope of the, rule making power of the Govt. The impugned rule requires that there should be a minimum distance of 400 metres between one permanent cinema building and another permanent cinema building. ( 6 ) THE object of the rule in the context of the exhibition of cinematograph exhibition is very clear. The Court while deciding the above question should take into consideration the consequences of establishment of a permanent cinema building. It gives rise to problems of law and order problem of sanitation, chances of incidence of fire and difficulties of regulating traffic. Examined with this background, the requirement of maintaining a distance of 400 metres between one cinema building and another cannot be considered to be outside the scope, of the regulatory provisions of the Act. The Legislature cannot, be expected to make detailed provisions with regard to all contingencies that may arise in the course of the administration of the: Act. It. has, therefore, delegated the power to. make rules for the purpose of effectively administering the provisions of the Act to, another authority. The Legislature cannot, be expected to make detailed provisions with regard to all contingencies that may arise in the course of the administration of the: Act. It. has, therefore, delegated the power to. make rules for the purpose of effectively administering the provisions of the Act to, another authority. In the instant case suck power is conferred on the State Govt. I do not find any substance in the contention urged on behalf of the; petitioners that Rule 27 (2) (b) is qutside the rule making power of the State government. ( 7 ) I do not also find any merit in the submission of Sri B. G. Sridharan that having regard to the fact that by Cl (c) of sub-sec (2) of Sec. 19,the legislature has expressly conferred the power on the Govt to make rules prescribing the distance petween a permanent cinema and a touring cinema, it has to; be held by implication that the, Legislature has denied the power to the State Govt to make a rule prescribing the distance between two permanent cinema buildings. 11 is very difficult to hold that by the enactment oi cl (c) of S. 19 (2); Act, the State' Govt became denunded of the power to make rules prescribing distance between two permanent cinema, buidings in view of the specific power conferred on the dtate Govt by Ss. 7 and 19 (1) and cls (b) and (d) of sub-sec (2) of S. 19 the Act. On the other hand, the said clause suggests that prescription of distance between any two cinema buildings is a matter which can be done by rules made under S. 19 (1); which confers power on the State Govt to make rules generally to carry put the purposes of the Act. The second contention, therefore, tails and it is rejected. ( 8 ) FOR the same reason the third contention also should fail. It cannot be said that the purpose of the Act would not be advanced by exacting Kule 27 (2), (b) of the Rules. The Act and the Rules are not merely intended to facilitate orderly exhibition of Cinematograph shows by the exhibitors. They are also intended to safeguard the interests of the public generally. I do, noft, therefore, find any merit in these; cases. The, petitions are dismissed. --- *** --- .