( 1 ) IN this writ petition the petitioner has questioned the 'no Objection certificate' (hereinafter referred to as the NOC) issued by the Dist magistrate, Chitradurga, to respondent 1 on 19-3-74 to establish a touring cinema on site No,. 7 of Challakere. ( 2 ) DURING the pendency of this writ petition the period of one year from the date on which the touring cinema was established pursuant to, the said 'noc' expired. It is stated that respondent 1 has made an application for the regrant of a licence and that is still pending. Rule 98 (2) of the Karnataka Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1971 as amended in the year 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) provides that no licence in respect of a site shall be granted or regranted continuously for a period exceeding one year unless one month has elapsed after the expiry of the said period of one year. In other words what Rule 98 (2) provides is that no licence to run a touring cinema on a site can be given for more than one year on any occasion, and if the licence is issued for a period shorter than one year it may be regranted for a further period but not beyond one year from the date on which the licence was originally granted. After the expiry of one year there should be a time lag of one month. This view gets further strengthened by Rule 99 which states that subject to Rule 98 (2) no licence shall be granted under Rule 98 or regranted onder Rule 105 for a period exceeding one year but a licence may be granted for a period less than one year. This view gets further strengthened by Rule 99 which states that subject to Rule 98 (2) no licence shall be granted under Rule 98 or regranted onder Rule 105 for a period exceeding one year but a licence may be granted for a period less than one year. It follows that regrant can be only of a licence, which is issued for less than one year, for a period not beyond one year from the date of the original grant Rule 105 (3) which states that a licence can be regranted subject to Rule 99 also emphasises the same view- it is, therefore, clear from the foregoing that after the expiry of one year it is necessary for the licensee to follow the procedure prescribed for the grant of a licence to run a touring cinema in order to obtain a fresh grant as there can be no regrant of a licence after it has ceased to be in force and there is a gap of one month. A regrant means a renewal without break. ( 3 ) AN applicant for a fresh grant of licence has to obtain a 'noc' under rule 96 of the Rules as amended on 17-1-1973. Cl (5) of Rule 96 however states that the licensing authority may on an application made to him in this behalf dispense with the notice in Form 'b' under sub-rule (2) and the requirements of sub-rule (1) and the procedure specified in sub-rule (3) for grant of 'noc' in respect of a camp site if a touring cinema had been allowed to camp) there on a previous occasion within a period of two and a half years from the date of application, provided that the licensing authority is satisfied after inspection that the site continues to conform to the conditions specified in Cls (h), (i), (j) and (k) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 and of rule 107. It however does not rule out the necessity for the issue of a 'noc'. It however does not rule out the necessity for the issue of a 'noc'. On the other hand, the very fact that under sub-rule (5) of rule 96, an alternative procedure is prescribed for granting a 'noc' within a period of two and a half years from the date on which another touring cinema nad been allowed to camp in the site in question, shows that there is a need for the" issue of a 'noc' even before the expiry of two and a half years. Whether the procedure followed by the Dist Magistrate in issuing the 'noc" is one provided under sub-rules (1) to (3) of Rule 96 or the procedure under sub-rule (5) of Rule 96, in-both the cases the Dist Magistrate should consider whether the provisions of Cls. (h), (i), (j) and (k) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 and of Rule 107 of the Rules are satisfied or not, it was argued that in Laxmi Tourina Talkies v. State of Karnataka air. 1975 Kar. 37= (1975) 1 Karlj. 419 . ( 4 ) IT had been held that when once a 'noc' was issued in respect of a site there would be no necessity to obtain a fresh 'noc' on any subsequent date having gone through the said decision carefully I am of the view that it does not state so. The Court was concerned in that case with the question whether at the time of re-grant of a licence which was possible when the period in respect of which re-grant was sought was within one year from the date of the original grant, there was necessity to consider whether rule 107 was complied with or not. It was not considering the question whether there was necessity for a fresh 'noc' after the expiry of one year from the date of original licence. Even in D. C. Nanjundappa v. State of Karndtaka WP. 5240/1974. the question involved was whether there was anv necessity to consider whether Rule 107 was contravened or not on 25-4-1974. when the 'noc' had been issued on 28-2-1974 In that case also a neriod of one year had not elapsed after the issue of the licence (see para 69 in the case of Laxmi Touring Talkies (1) ). 5240/1974. the question involved was whether there was anv necessity to consider whether Rule 107 was contravened or not on 25-4-1974. when the 'noc' had been issued on 28-2-1974 In that case also a neriod of one year had not elapsed after the issue of the licence (see para 69 in the case of Laxmi Touring Talkies (1) ). ( 5 ) IN the case of a touring cinema it cannot be held that a 'noc' once issued would obviate the necessity for issue of 'noc' on any subsequent date As mentioned earlier, Cl (5) of Rule 96 leads to the inevitable conclusion that there is a necessity for a 'noc' even before the lapse of two and a half years from the date on which a touring cinema had been allowed to camp on any site. ( 6 ) FROM the foregoing it follows that respondent 2 has to apply for a fresh 'noc' as the period of one year from the date of original grant of licence has expired. It is no doubt open to him to request the Dist Magistrate to follow the alternative procedure prescribed in Rule 96 (5) for issuing fresh 'noc'. But he cannot depend upon the 'noc' which is impugned in this petition. Hence there is no need to quash it. In the instant case, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits, that no 'noc' can be issued to respondent 1 because there is a hospital within forty metres from the site in question and that his own permanent cinema building is situate within 16 K. Ms. These matters have to be taken into consideration by the District Magistrate before issuing a 'noc' in view of cl (i) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 and of Rule 107 (1) (a) of the Rules. It is open to the petitioner to urge these grounds before the Dist Magistrate. In view of the foregoing there is no need to issue any writ in this case. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Dist Magistrate within ten days. --- *** --- .