Judgment :- RAMANUJAM, J. The petitioner applied for a No Objection Certificate for locating a touring cinema in Kilpallipattu village, North Arcot district. The Collector of North Arcot, the licensing authority, refused to grant the No Objection Certificate for various grounds. One of the grounds on which the said refusal was based is that there is already a touring cinema in the village, that there are other touring cinemas nearby, and that therefore, there is no warrant for locating another touring cinema in that place. 2. When the order of rejection passed by the Collector was challenged before the Board of Revenue, the Board of Revenue also agreed with the Collector and held that the village being a small one, the existing touring cinema is sufficient. Thus though the Board of Revenue disagreed with the Collector in respect of other matter, it upheld the order of the Collector on the question of adequacy. In this view, the Board of Revenue dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. 3. In this writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the finding of the Collector as well as the Board of Revenue, that the village cannot accommodate more than one touring cinema is contrary to r. 14(1) of the Madras Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, which directs the licensing authority to take into account the population only while considering the grant of No. Objection Certificate for a permanent cinema and even that only in towns. It is true, as contended by the learned counsel, that under r. 14, the population of a particular place cannot be exclusive matter to be taken note of at the time of grant of No Objection Certificate for turning cinema. sec. 5(1)(d) of the Madras Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1965 however, directs the licensing authority to take not account the existing places for exhibition of cinematograph films in the locality. From this it is clear that the third respondent (licensing authority in this case) has to necessarily consider the question of adequacy at the time of the grant of No objection Certificate. In this case, both the collection as were as the Board Revenue have found that the existing touring cinemas in the village as well as the other touring cinemas in and around the locality are adequate and the touring cinema proposed by the petitioner cannot, therefore, be allowed. In this case, both the collection as were as the Board Revenue have found that the existing touring cinemas in the village as well as the other touring cinemas in and around the locality are adequate and the touring cinema proposed by the petitioner cannot, therefore, be allowed. The question of adequacy is admittedly one of fact depending upon the situation of the village, the population in and around the locality, etc., Respondents 1 and 3 having decided that question and found the existing places for exhibition of cinematograph films in the locality are adequate, this Court cannot go behind that finding of fact. 4. The writ petitioner therefore fails and the same is dismissed.