Judgment S.ALI AHMAD, J. 1. This application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitu-tion of India is on behalf of one of the partners of M/s. Veena Theatres (a cinema house) in the town of Patna. The prayer 10 to declare S. 5(2) of the Bihar Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and condition No. 8 of the licence (Annexure-1) to be ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdic-tion. It has also been prayed to quash Annexure-2, a notice dated 24th October, 1875, issued by respondent No. 2. 2. According to the petitioner, a permanent cinema licence dated 16th September, 1974, was granted to him by the District Magistrate, respondent No. 2, under the powers conferred upon him under S. 3 of the Act. The petitioner under that licence has been running the cinema business of M/s. Veena Theatre. A copy of the licence along with an endorsement made thereon on 21st Febru-ary, 1975, has been marked as Annexure-1 to this writ application. It appears that a notice (Annexure-2) issued by the District Magistrate respondent No. 2, was served on the petitioner informing him that the period of the licence was to ex-pire on 31st December, 1975 and, there-fore, for the purpose of renewal of the licence for the year 1976, he should pro-duce by 25th November, 1975, the fol-lowing certificates from:- (a) the Branch Manager, Films Division, Calcutta, (b) the Executive Engineer, P.W.D., Patna, regarding structural soundness of the cinema building, (c) Chief Electrical Inspector, Bihar, Patna, (d) Clearance certificate of entertainment tax, (e) Adhi-sthan Agnisam Padadhikari, Patna, (f) Treasury Chalan regarding payment of prescribed fee, (g) Municipal tax pay-ment certificate. 3 Mr. Shreenath Singh, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the peti-tioner submitted that S. 5 (2) of the Act and condition No.8 of the licence, which provided for suspension or cancellation of the licence in case the licensing autho-rity was satisfied that the licensee has violated the provisions of Ss. 6, 7, 9 (5) or 9 (6) of the Bihar Entertainment Tax Act, 1948. or of R. 4 or R. 17 (4) or R. 23 of the Rules made thereunder were ultra vires. 6, 7, 9 (5) or 9 (6) of the Bihar Entertainment Tax Act, 1948. or of R. 4 or R. 17 (4) or R. 23 of the Rules made thereunder were ultra vires. Alternatively, he also urged that even in case S. 5 (2) of the Act and condition No. 8 of the licence were not held to be ultra vires, respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction under the Act and the Rules made thereunder to ask the peti-tioner to produce the different certifi-cates mentioned in Annexure-2. Accord-ing to him, the licence granted to him on 16th September, 1974, and renewed on 21st August, 1975, was to be valid for three years from 21st August, 1975. i.e., up to 21st August, 1978, and, as such, there was no question of renewal. 4. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State (respondent No. 1) or on behalf of the District Magistrate (respondent No. 2) or on behalf of the District Cinema Magistrate (respondent No. 3), but the Government Pleader No. IV has opposed the application at the time of the hearing. 5. In view of the submissions made at the bar, it is necessary to keep certain provisions of the Act and the Rules in mind. The Act came into force on 19th April, 1954, repealing Act II of 1918, the Cinematograph Act, 1918. Under S. 5 of the Act, the powers of the licensing authority have been restricted. The sec-tion reads as follows:- "Restrictions of powers of licensing authority:- (1) The licensing authority shall not grant a licence under this Act, unless it is satisfied that- (a) the rules made under this Act have been substantially complied with; and (b) adequate precautions have been taken in the place, in respect of which the licence is to be given, to provide for the safety of persons attending exhibi-tion therein. (2) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this section and to the control of the State Government, the licensing authority may grant licences under this Act to such persons as that authority thinks fit and on such terms and conditions and subject to such restrictions as it may determine. (2) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this section and to the control of the State Government, the licensing authority may grant licences under this Act to such persons as that authority thinks fit and on such terms and conditions and subject to such restrictions as it may determine. (3) Any person aggrieved by the deci-sion of a licensing authority refusing to grant a licence under this Act may with-in such time as may be prescribed, appeal to the State Government or to such officer as State Government may specify in this behalf, and the State Govern-ment or the officer, as the case may be, may make such order in the case as it or he thinks fit (4) The State Government may, from time to time, issue, directions to licen-sees generally or to any licensee in par-ticular for the purpose of regulating the exhibition of any film or class of films, so that scientific films, films intended for educational purposes, films dealing with news and current events, documentary films or indigenous films secure an ade-quate opportunity of being exhibited, and where any such directions have been issued, those directions shall be deemed to be addi-tional conditions and restrictions subject to which the licence has been granted." In exercise of the powers conferred by S. 9 of the Act the State Government framed rules which were published in the Bihar Gazette dated 11th October. 1974 and are known as the Bihar Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules). Rule 2 (v) of the Rules defines permanent building. According to the definition permanent building means a building which is constructed for permanent use with stone, mud brick, mortar, cement or other non-inflammable material. Rule 8 of the Rules provides for grant of licence. Licence under this rule can be granted for running a permanent cinema after the licensing authority has ensured that the applicant has complied with the pro-vision of the Rules and instructions issued from time to time by the State Government and has taken all precautions to provide for the safety of persons attending exhibition in the cinema house. Rule 10 of the Rules provides for the period of validity of permanent licence which may be usefully quoted as follows:- "Period of validity of permanent licence. Rule 10 of the Rules provides for the period of validity of permanent licence which may be usefully quoted as follows:- "Period of validity of permanent licence. The licence granted under R.8 and those permanent licences which are in existence shall be valid for a period of three years from the date from which the licence is granted subject to annual inspection and payment of prescribed fees unless revoked earlier by the licensing authority. For each licence or renewal thereof, a fee shall be charged ac-cording to the following rates, namely....." According to R. 11 of the Rules, if any licensee fails to apply for renewal of his licence with the requisite fee within 15 days of the date of expiry of his licence, he shall, at the time of its renewal be required to pay a fine of a sum equivalent to requisite fee for such re-newal. Rule 12 of the Rules provides for inspection. According to sub-r. (i) (a) of R. 12 of the Rules before granting or renewing a licence or on expiry of the period of one year, the State Govern-ment may direct the licensing authority to ask the Electric Inspector, Bihar and the Executive Engineer, P.W.D., to in-spect and examine the structural sound-ness of the cinema building and to certi-fy that the same can be used without danger to the public. 6. Mr. Shreenath Singh first attacked the validity of S. 5 (2) of the Act. I have quoted this sub-section earlier which provides that subject to sub-s. (1) of S. 5 of the Act and to the control of the State Government, the licensing autho-rity may grant licence under the Act to such persons as the authority thinks fit and on such terms and conditions and subject to such restrictions as it may determine. According to learned counsel this sub-section confers unguided, un-bridled, arbitrary and uncanalised power to the licensing authority. According to him, the sub-section was bad on account of excessive delegation also. It was, therefore, contended that the said pro-vision was ultra vires to Arts. 301 to 304 of the Constitution of India. According to learned counsel this sub-section confers unguided, un-bridled, arbitrary and uncanalised power to the licensing authority. According to him, the sub-section was bad on account of excessive delegation also. It was, therefore, contended that the said pro-vision was ultra vires to Arts. 301 to 304 of the Constitution of India. This point has already been considered by a Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Vishnu Talkies V/s. State of Bihar, AIR 1975 Pat 26 wherein it has been held that S. 5 (2) of the Act is not ultra vires either to Art.14 or Art. 19 of the Constitution of India nor on the ground that it had given no guideline for the exercise of discretion by a licensing authority. It has also been held that the sub-section did not confer any rule-making power on the licensing authority at all. There was, therefore, no question of any excessive delegation of legislative power to the licensing authority. In view of the afore-said decision, there is no substance in this argument of learned counsel which is, therefore, rejected. 7. Mr. Singh next submitted that condition No. 8 of the licence which authorises the licensing authority to cancel or suspend the licence in case he was satisfied that the licensee has violat-ed certain provisions of the Bihar Enter-tainment Tax Act and Rules is bad. Dur-ing the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner informed us that his client has not violated any of the provisions mentioned in condition No. 8 of the licence. He also informed us that the entire amount of tax under the entertainment tax has already been paid. If that be so then the point raised by learned counsel becomes academic in nature and, therefore, need not be decided. 8. Lastly Mr. Singh submitted that the petitioner had been granted a licence on the 16th September, 1974 which was renewed on 21st August, 1975. According to him, under R. 10 of the Rules, the licence granted is to remain valid for a period of three years from 21st August, 1975 and that during the period of the validity of the licence, the demand to get the licence renewed was bad. Learn-ed counsel further submitted that count-ing three years from 21st August, 1975, the licence will expire on 20th August, 1978 subject to annual inspection and payment of prescribed fee. Learn-ed counsel further submitted that count-ing three years from 21st August, 1975, the licence will expire on 20th August, 1978 subject to annual inspection and payment of prescribed fee. It is not dis-puted that the prescribed fee has been deposited by the petitioner. He, there-fore, contended that the demand for getting the licence renewed and for pro-duction of the certificates mentioned in Annexure-2 is bad. Learned Government Pleader No. IV, on the other hand, sub-mitted that on the expiry of one year, the licence has to be renewed and before the licence is renewed, the licensing authority must satisfy himself that the conditions prescribed by the Act and the Rules have been fulfilled for renewal. He, therefore, submitted that the certi-ficates asked for by Annexure-2 are meant to satisfy the requirement of law. Before I proceed to decide this point, it will be decirable to mention one more fact which has been brought on record during the course of argument on 4th January, 1977, by way of supplementary affidavit. It is, inter alia, stated in the supplementary affidavit that after the filing of the writ application, the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred on it under the Bihar Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1954 and the Bihar Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1974 , has issued a direction to the District Magis-trate. Patna, respondent No. 2, the licensing authority, in the matter of re-newal of the petitioners licence for Veena Cinema. But in spite of the afore-said direction of the State Government, the licensing authority, in complete dis-regard, and violation of the said direc-tion, has by a memo, dated 3-11-1976 again issued a notice to the petitioner similar to the earlier notice (Annex. 2) to the writ application. A copy of the notice dated 3-11-1976 has been marked as Annexure-4 to the writ application while the direction issued by the State Govern-ment under S. 5 (2) of the Act has been marked as Annexure-3. A perusal of Annexure-3 will show that the State Government approved renewal of a per-manent licence for Veena Cinema from 5-1-1976 to 31-12-1978. It also says that the renewal could be done by the District Magistrate after inspection and on deposit of the prescribed licence fee. 9. Admittedly the petitioner was granted a permanent licence on the 16th September, 1974, which was to remain in force till 31-3-1975. It also says that the renewal could be done by the District Magistrate after inspection and on deposit of the prescribed licence fee. 9. Admittedly the petitioner was granted a permanent licence on the 16th September, 1974, which was to remain in force till 31-3-1975. The Rules came into operation on the 11th October, 1974 and by virtue of R. 10 of the Rules, in spite of the fact that the licence was to re-main in force till 31-3-1975, its life was extended to a period of three years be-ginning from 16th September, 1974. I, however, find an endorsement dated 21st August, 1975 on the licence made by the District Cinema Magistrate (respondent No. 3) whereby he renewed the licence up to 31-12-1975 on the condition that facility for drinking water of the cine-goers be made by providing a Bahar Cooler. I do not think that the argument Of Mr. Singh is correct that three years have to be counted from 21st August, 1975, for the purpose of counting the period of validity of the licence as pro-vided under R. 10 of the Rules. As I have mentioned above, the Rules had come into operation on the 11th October, 1974, and by virtue of R. 10 of the Rules, the period of licence had already been extended to 16th September, 1977. There was, therefore, no question of renewal within that period. It might have been done under some misconception, but that will not mean that the period of three years as provided under R. 10 of the Rules has to be counted from that day. I also do not feel impressed by the argument advanced by the learned Government Pleader No. IV that in spite of the vali-dity of the licence for three years, the licence has to be renewed every year. Rule 10 of the Rules makes it abundantly clear that the permanent licence which is in existence shall be valid for a period of three years from the date on which the licence is granted subject to annual inspection and payment of prescribed fee unless revoked earlier by the licensing authority. Rule 12 of the Rules pro-vides for inspection which can be made before granting a licence or renewing a licence or on expiry of the period of one year. Rule 12 of the Rules pro-vides for inspection which can be made before granting a licence or renewing a licence or on expiry of the period of one year. If the argument of the learned Government Pleader No. IV is to be accepted then under R. 12 of the Rules an inspection on expiry of the period of one year becomes absolutely redundant. I am, therefore, of the view that the licence granted to the petitioner on the 16th September, 1974, is to remain valid for a period of three years from that date, i. e. till the 15th September, 1977, sub-ject, of course, to annual inspection as provided under R. 12 of the Rules and payment of prescribed fee. Under R. 12 of the Rules, the State Government may direct the licensing authority to ask the Electric Inspector, Bihar, and the Exe-cutive Engineer, P.W.D., to inspect and examine the structural soundness of the cinema building and to certify that the same can be used without danger to the public. The rule does not very rightly, impose a duty on the licensee to persu-ade the Electric inspector, Bihar, and the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. (Building) to come and inspect the cinema house. The Electric Inspector, Bihar and the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. (Building) are Government Officials and may not be able under their service conditions to oblige the licensee by inspecting and examining the structural soundness of the cinema building and by certifying that the same can be used without danger to the public. Possibly on that account the rule provided that the State Govern-ment may direct the licensing authority to ask the Electric Inspector. Bihar and the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. (Building) to inspect and examine the struc-tural soundness of the cinema building and to certify that the same can be used without danger to the public. In case the licensing authority under the direc-tion of the State Government asks the Electric Inspector, Bihar and the Execu-tive Engineer, P.W.D. (Building) to inspect and examine the structural soundness of the cinema building and to submit a report, the two officials will have no difficulty in making the inspection and examining the structural soundness of the cinema building. The demand, therefore, for production of certificates from the Electric Inspector, Bihar and the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. (Build-ing) is bad. The demand, therefore, for production of certificates from the Electric Inspector, Bihar and the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. (Build-ing) is bad. These two certificates as provided under sub-r. (i) (a) of R. 12 of the Rules is the only requirement be-sides payment of prescribed fee under R. 10 of the Rules. The production of other certificates as asked for by Annexure-2 is also bad. 10. In the result, I find that the peti-tioners licence granted on the 16th Sep-tember, 1974, is to remain valid up to 15th September, 1977, subject to pay-ment of prescribed fee and inspection as provided under sub-r. (i) (a) of R. 12 of the Rules. In that view of the matter, Annexure-2 is quashed and the applica-tion is allowed to the extent indicated above. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. K.B.N.SINGH, J. 11 I agree.