K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition under Art. 226 of the constitution, the petitioner has challenged the correctness of the order dated 10-1-1978 passed by the State government in No. HD. 250 CNA 77 rejecting the application dated 9-11-1977 filed by the petitioner seeking exemption under Sec. 20 of the Karnatak cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) from the operation of Rule 27 (2) (4) of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) rules 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), for location of a sound proof cinema theatre on the site bearing No. 27/7 of Maratha Ranoji rao Lane, Kalasipalyam New Extension, Dn. 39, Bangalore-5. ( 2 ) AT the outset, Sri H. B. Datar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that since the date of rejection of the application, several developments have taken place in the division in which the site in question is si turned ana in the light of the changes that have taken place, the petitioner intends to make a fresh application before the Government for exempting the site in question from the operation of Rule 27 (2) (4) of the rules It was also further submitted by the learned Counsel that it is always open for the State Government to take into consideration the changed, circumstances for the purpose of Exerasing the power of exemption s. 20 of the Act, reads as follows:"pouar to exempt. The State government may, if it is aecessar or expedient in public interests so to do, by order in writing and subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be specified in the order, exempt any cinematograph exhibition or class of men atograph exhibitions or any place where a cinematograph exhibition is given from any of the provisions of this Act or of any rules made thereunder. "this, the power to exempt any cinematogaph exhibition or class of cinematograph exhibitions or any place where a cinematograph exhibition is given from any of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, is to be exercised by the State Government if it is found necessary or expedient in the public interest so to do. "this, the power to exempt any cinematogaph exhibition or class of cinematograph exhibitions or any place where a cinematograph exhibition is given from any of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, is to be exercised by the State Government if it is found necessary or expedient in the public interest so to do. In fact, the Act and the Rules while regulating exhibitions by neans of cinematograph and the licencing of places in which cinematograph films are exhibited in the state of Karnataka are also intended to rovide for safety, convenience and eon for of the persons attending cinematograph exhibitions. Thus, the power to exempt as provided by Sec. 20 of the Act, is to be exercised to advance the object and intendment of the Act and the Rules. The power of exenotion is intended to see that the object and the policy underlying the act and not frustrated. In these matters there is no question of application of the principles of res-judicata inasmuch as there is no full point to the development of a city In a fast growing city like Bangalore several changes do take place every now and then Therefore the power of exemption 'iven to the state Governmpnt under S- 20 of the Act, is to be exercised so as to keep in tune with the development of the City, so that the public interest is better searved. Thus merely because an application for exempting the site in question from the operation of certain provisions of the Rules was rejected, it does not disentitle the petitioner to seek exemption once again in respect of the very site under the altered circumstancses. Similarly, the State government is also not deprived of its power to grant exemption if it is found necessary and expedient in the public interest so to do merely because it had on the earlier occasion refused to grant the exemption sought for by the petitioner in respect of the site in question. In this connection, a recent decision of the Supreme Court is very apposite. The said decision is the one rendered in the c. se of Registrar of co-op. Societies v. K. Kunjambu (1 ). In this connection, a recent decision of the Supreme Court is very apposite. The said decision is the one rendered in the c. se of Registrar of co-op. Societies v. K. Kunjambu (1 ). The Supreme Court, while considering the scope of the power of the State Government to exempt under S. 60 of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, has held as follows: "but, numerous as the provisions are, they are not capable of meeting the extensive demands of the comple situations which may arise in the course of the working of the Act and the formation and the functioning of the Societies. In fact, the too rigorous applications of some of the provisions of the Act may itself occasionally result in frustrating the very objects of th2 Act instead of advancing them it is to provide for such situations that the Government is invested by section 60 with a power to relax the occasional rigour of the provisions of the Act and to advance the objects of the Act. Sec. 60 empowers the State government to exempt a registered society from any of the provisions of the Act or to direct that such provision shall apply to such society with specified modifications The power given to the Government under section 60 of the Act is to be exercised so as to advance the policy and objects of the Act, according to the guidelines as may be gleaned from the preamble and other provisions which we have already pointed out, are clear " (Emphasis is supplied) if there is any change in, the circumstances, it is always open for the state Government to reconsider the matter in the background of changed circumstances, The learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon a decision of the Kings Bench Division in the case of Taylor v. Brighton Corporation, (2) the relevant portion of which reads as follows:"i am wholly unable to accede to that argument, because it seems to me that what the Act says in its first section, is that the scheme can be made with the general object of controlling the development of land, and under ss. 11 and 12 of the Act of 1932 we find provisions for regulating the use of land or the development of land, and surely no better means of control or regulation can be found than by saying that you shall not use your land for some purpose or another unless with the consent of the local authority. That is one methed of controlling or regulating. The consequences of deciding the contrary would seem to me to be somewhat serious, because the conditions in any town or in any countryside may change, and change rapidly from time to time, and what may be a perfectly reasonable control on regulation in the year 1946 might be a wholly unreasonable or undesirable regulation in the year, let us say, 1950 or 1956. It may be that one part of the town alters to such an extent 17, at the councu would say: "although we have hitherto granted fun fairs in this part of brighton, or this part of our area, we are no longer going to do so because the character of that part has changed whereas although we formerly would not have given leave to have a fun fair in West Street, now West Street has so changed that we think it is a very proper place to have one if anybody wants to". Surely it is a dosirable thing that in these matters there should be a Certain amount of elasticity and provision for local authorities adjusting their regulations or their prohibitions as circumstances may arise. " (Emphasis is supplied) ( 3 ) THUS, in the instant case, if as submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, there is any change in the circumstances enabling the petitioner to seek exemption of the site from any of the provisions of the act and the Rules, it is open for the state Government to consider such an application to be made by the petitioner on its merits and without reference to the order dated 10-1-1978 passed by the state Government in No. HD 250 CNA 77 challenged in this writ petition. ( 4 ) WITH these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. --- *** --- .