JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - Many times arbitrary decisions by the authorities entrusted with responsibility of granting or renewing licence either because of personal prejudice, political pressure or for extraneous consideration result in financial loss, humiliation and torture to the licensee. But here is a case where unreasonable and harassing attitude adopted by the District Magistrate/Licensing Authority, Varanasi, under the Cinematograph Act, entailed heavy loss not only to petitioners but the State Government as well. 2. Things went on smoothly for Bharti Cinema, Varanasi run by petitioners who were its licensee-tenants till letter dated 18th Jan. 1979 was received by their attorney (hereinafter referred as petitioner) from District Magistrate intimating them under R. 38 of the U. P. -Cinematograph Rules, 1951, that Additional Entertainment Tax Commissioner, Mobile Squad, along with Entertainment Tax Officer found in inspection in the afternoon of 2nd Jan. 1979 that the auditorium had only six latrines when keeping in view the number of seats it should have been seven. It was also found that the chairs in balcony class were put on wooden planks which was again contrary to Cinematograph Rules as use of such inflammable material was irregular. Petitioner was directed to remove defects within period of three weeks. On 9th Feb. 1979 petitioner sent reply to the notice received by him and intimated therein that construction of 7th latrine has already started. In respect of second defect noticed by the Entertainment Tax Authorities, it was pointed out that practice of putting chairs of balcony class on wooden planks was continuing since 1940 and similar objection was raised in 1975 when after inspection etc. the petitioner was permitted to continue the same subject to certain safeguard which were accepted by the Chief Fire Officer as.well. It was also mentioned in the letter that as the dispute between petitioner and the owner in respect of cinema was pending in the highest court it was not possible for -them to carry on any alteration. 3. It appears the petitioner approached State Government as well which by order dated 26th April 1979 directed the licensing authority to renew the licence for six months. Consequently the licensing authority intimated petitioner on 9th May 1979 that in view of government's order his licence was being renewed but he should in the meantime get the cinema building in accordance with Rr. 2(viii), 8(viii), and 8 (xi) of Cinematograph Rules 1951. Consequently the licensing authority intimated petitioner on 9th May 1979 that in view of government's order his licence was being renewed but he should in the meantime get the cinema building in accordance with Rr. 2(viii), 8(viii), and 8 (xi) of Cinematograph Rules 1951. To this a reply was sent by petitioner on 15th Oct. 1979. It was pointed out that cinema was constructed before enactment of Rules in 1951 and same' was running since then, after renewal of licence each year, after due inspection. It was pointed out that building was constructed with bricks, mortar and cement and other non-inflammable material and was in conformity with R. 2(viii) of 1951 Rules. It was also pointed out that the distance between floor of auditorium and ceiling or any covering immediately above it was not less than 12 feet and, therefore, it was in conformity with R. 8 (viii). In respect of R. 8 (xi) it was pointed out that floor of balcony having been made of cement concrete it could carry 120 pounds live-load per sq. feet, which had been agreed by the licensing authority. The reply further stated that on the cemented floor only seats had been fixed on wooden planks. This had been examined by Fire Officer who approved and `issued a no objection certificate. And as landlord of premises had filed an appeal in Supreme Court, therefore, pending its decision it was not possible to make any material change in the building. The petitioners however, agreed to cover wooden planks with tin sheets for satisfaction of authorities. It appears that licensing authority forwarded these papers to the State Government, which in its turn sent a radiogram on 2nd Nov. 1979, followed by letter dated 3rd Nov. 1979, directing the District Magistrate to intimate petitioners that the licence could be renewed for a period of three months during which time the petitioners should get the wooden planks covered by galvanised tin sheets, to make it fireproof. On 21st Jan. 1980 petitioners informed the licensing authority that he has complied with the direction issued by him on 28th Nov. 1979, issued in pursuance of letter of the State Government and he was requested to inspect the same and renew the licence up to 21st March 1980. On 21st Jan. 1980 petitioners informed the licensing authority that he has complied with the direction issued by him on 28th Nov. 1979, issued in pursuance of letter of the State Government and he was requested to inspect the same and renew the licence up to 21st March 1980. In between, the landlord appears to have approached the civil court and obtained an injunction restraining the petitioners from making any change in the balcony. Information of it was also given to District Magistrate who sent a show cause notice on 30th Jan. 1980 to the petitioners to show cause as to why petitioners put tin sheets on balcony despite an injunction from civil court. It was replied on 1st Feb. 1980. It was pointed out that petitioners never refused to receive any injunction through Commissioner as the petitioners' attorney had left for Calcutta on 21st Jan. 1980 due to death of his uncle and work of covering balcony with tin-sheets to make it fire-proof had been completed on or about 18th Jan. 1980, intimation of which was sent to licensing authority on 21st Jan. 1980. It was also pointed out in letter that petitioners had come to know that licensing authority had sent a memo to the P. W. D. and Fire Officer for inspection of cinema to give their reports about the balcony being able to support 120 pounds weight per sq. feet and whether balcony was fire-proof or not. Petitioners pointed out that such inspections were generally made when there was any major addition or alteration in the building. Since there had been no major alteration the inspection of cinema was due in March 1980. It was submitted that inspection was neither necessary nor required under rules, specially when detailed inspection had been made by all concerned departments as well as various administrative authorities, including the licensing authority. In the end it was prayed that as petitioners had complied with directions issued to them they were entitled to renewal of their licence with effect from 3rd Feb. 1980, as they had already deposited licence fee for the period up to 31st March, 1980. 4. Injunction granted by civil court was vacated on 25th March 1980. Chief Fire Officer, who had made inspection in pursuance of direction by licensing authority intimated him that arrangements made by management of cinema were adequate, proper and did not pose fire hazard. 1980, as they had already deposited licence fee for the period up to 31st March, 1980. 4. Injunction granted by civil court was vacated on 25th March 1980. Chief Fire Officer, who had made inspection in pursuance of direction by licensing authority intimated him that arrangements made by management of cinema were adequate, proper and did not pose fire hazard. Request for renewal of licence, therefore, was repeated by petitioners on 31st March 1980. On 17th April 1980 petitioners also sent a letter to Chief Secretary Government of U. P. that due to pressure of a local member of Legislative Assembly licence of petitioners' cinema was not being renewed, although he had complied with all the objections, raised by licensing authority. On 21st April 1980 the P. W. D. submitted its inspection report on the basis of inspection on 2nd Feb. 1980, 8th March 1980 and 17th March 1980, which, according to the petitioners were made without any notice to them. It was pointed out that wooden structures on which chairs had been fixed, could not take prescribed load, although it has been explained in the writ petition that this report was not correct, as the test was carried on by putting load on the wooden structures and while doing so the legs of wooden structures had been removed. On 20th June 1980 a report was submitted by Addl. District Magistrate. He has narrated developments starting from 30th March 1978 on application of petitioner till 11th April, 1980. From this report it appears that after Chief Fire Officer had intimated the licensing authority on 25th March 1980 that by putting galvanised sheets the balcony had become fire-proof. Another report was obtained on 11th April 1980 which was contrary to it. The report has not been filed. But it does indicate that someone was twisting hand from behind. The Additional District Magistrate did not agree with report of P. W. D. dated 21st April 1980 that wooden structure of balcony was incapable of bearing 120 lbs. weight. It was pointed out that balcony was of cement and mortar. This aspect was not taken into consideration by the P. W. D. He, therefore, recommended that fresh comments be obtained. Apart from these aspects the Additional District, Magistrate also recommended to the licensing authority that if considered proper it was better if both parties were summoned and the dispute was got settled. This aspect was not taken into consideration by the P. W. D. He, therefore, recommended that fresh comments be obtained. Apart from these aspects the Additional District, Magistrate also recommended to the licensing authority that if considered proper it was better if both parties were summoned and the dispute was got settled. The reference to other party obviously is to landlord-owner. It indicates that even the authority felt that petitioner was being unnecessarily harassed and this was due to landlord-owner. Another reminder was sent to the licensing authority that due to non- renewal of cinema licence, which was pending for more than six months petitioners as well as State Government were being subjected to heavy loss and, therefore, an early decision may be taken and if decision was likely to take some time then a short-term licence may be granted to them. In another letter sent on 10th Sept. 1980 it was suggested that in case there was difficulty in granting a licence for entire cinema then for time being the -licence may be granted for ground-floor and the balcony class may be closed till further decisions. Request was repeated on 24th Sept. It was also suggested that fresh inspection may be done by the P. W. D. Having failed in his efforts with the licensing authority the petitioners made a representation to the Finance Minister bringing to his notice the circumstances in which licence was not being renewed due to behind the scene activity of his landlord, who was instrumental in all this as a result of his failure to eject petitioners from the premises. The petitioner's effort yielded result and on 7th Oct. 1980 the Additional Secretary State Government issued a letter to the District Magistrate, Varanasi in respect of renewal of licence of the petitioner's cinema. It was pointed out in this letter that some of the defects in respect of contravention of rules were not correct and so far as load testing etc. was concerned, a report may be obtained by P. W. D. and may be submitted to the Government within 15 days. But what was material in the letter was that the licensing authority was directed to ascertain through P. W. D. if the concrete of balcony was able to sustain 120 pounds weight per sq. feet, excluding the wooden structures. was concerned, a report may be obtained by P. W. D. and may be submitted to the Government within 15 days. But what was material in the letter was that the licensing authority was directed to ascertain through P. W. D. if the concrete of balcony was able to sustain 120 pounds weight per sq. feet, excluding the wooden structures. Further licensing authority was directed to renew the licence immediately, of the ground floor excluding balcony and intimate the Government. The Government, therefore not only accepted the claim of petitioners that licence for ground floor be renewed, but it also agreed to that part of report of Addl. District Magistrate that earl:--r testing, carried on by P. W. D. on wooden structures, was not proper and a fresh load-testing may be carried on of the same. On 5th Nov. 1980 petitioners again moved the licensing authority that the matter relating to grant of cinema licence was being unnecessarily delayed and request was made for personal inspection so that the licensing authority may know for himself about the balcony of the cinema. 5. It is indeed surprising that despite directions from the State Government the licensing authority not only ignored it but did not take any step and it was only on 2nd March 1981 that the Additional District Magistrate informed the petitioners that their balcony was to be tested by Executive Engineer, therefore, necessary arrangements of labour etc. may be made so that a report in this connection may be sent to the Government. Another letter was received from Executive Engineer of P. W. D. the same day, that petitioners should make arrangement of 700 bags of cement or 1150 bricks for the purposes of load testing of the balcony. It was also mentioned that the Executive Engineer had desired it to be done on 12th Feb. 1981, but it could not be carried out as necessary arrangements were not made by petitioners. It has been explained in petition that petitioners never received any intimation from Executive Engineer for load testing on 12th Feb. 1981. It was also mentioned that the Executive Engineer had desired it to be done on 12th Feb. 1981, but it could not be carried out as necessary arrangements were not made by petitioners. It has been explained in petition that petitioners never received any intimation from Executive Engineer for load testing on 12th Feb. 1981. On 7th March 1981 the petitioners sent a letter to the A. D. M. (Finance), Varanasi intimating him that despite all arrangements having been made on 6-3-1981, intimation of which was given on telephone to the Executive Engineer, neither Executive Engineer nor the District Magistrate turned up, rather petitioners were informed that load-testing had been adjourned. This appears to have been deferred obviously because of letter sent by the owner landlord on 4-3-1981 to the Executive Engineer, copy of which was forwarded to District Magistrate and Superintending Engineer P. W. D. that load-testing of balcony should not be done without their knowledge and consent. It was further stated that as the building was old one, it could not bear the additional load, therefore, the authorities should stop the proceedings of load-testing. On 18th March 1981 the petitioners received another letter from Assistant Engineer P. W. D. that for carrying out the load-testing of balcony they should remove the wooden structures on which chairs have been fixed so that balcony itself could be tested and secondly underneath balcony pillars raising from the ground-floor should be erected, which ought to step 2 feet away from balcony. Despite arrangements having been made no testing could be done as owner-landlord had obtained an injunction restraining the State of U. P. from carrying out load-testing of the balcony of Bharti cinema. In this suit the State Government filed an affidavit mentioning that balcony of the cinema was pucca and only structures on which seats were embedded, were made of wood. Injunction granted by the Munsif stood discharged by lapse of time. It was also vacated in appeal. 6. Since the petitioner was suffering and the authorities did not carry out load-testing he got it done by a retired Additional Chief engineer, P. W. D. & Special Secretary to U.. P. Government, Consultant, Civil Engineering, Registered Valuer Cat. Injunction granted by the Munsif stood discharged by lapse of time. It was also vacated in appeal. 6. Since the petitioner was suffering and the authorities did not carry out load-testing he got it done by a retired Additional Chief engineer, P. W. D. & Special Secretary to U.. P. Government, Consultant, Civil Engineering, Registered Valuer Cat. 1 of 1973-83 Technical Adviser to U. P. Government L. S. G. & Housing & Urban Development, Consultant to National Textile Corporation, U. P. After discussing various aspects it was pointed out by him that licence for entire cinema including balcony could be safely given. He then pointed out that if the Government desired that balcony should be load-tested it may be done but there was absolutely no likelihood of any danger to the spectators sitting on the ground floor and testing of R. C. C. slab of balcony was not required for the purposes of granting licence for ground floor. And since balcony would be closed to spectators there would be zero live load on the balcony. On 20th June 1981 a meeting was summoned, on whose behest is not clear, but it was attended by District Magistrate, Varanasi, Superintending Engineer P. W. D., Varanasi, and Executive Engineer P. W. D., Varanasi and Joint Secretary of the Institutional (Finance). The meeting decided that four matters be considered, as to whether it was possible to grant licence for ground floor in the event of balcony being cardoned off effectively for non-use, could licence of balcony be granted without endangering the public safety, could a licence of balcony be granted by reducing its seating capacity, in case balcony was not to be utilised for sitting then what precaution was to be taken in totality of circumstances. It was contemplated that Executive Engineer P. W. D. would submit a report to the District Magistrate, Varanasi, keeping in view the issues of the meeting. The Executive Engineer is stated to have submitted a report to Superintending Engineer Varanasi stating that in case balcony was cardoned off effectively licence of ground floor could be granted. It was also pointed out by him that he was not willing to take responsibility for any damage that may be caused to the balcony during course of testing. Report of the - Executive Engineer was forwarded to the District Magistrate by Superintending Engineer by his letter dated 3rd Aug. 1981. It was also pointed out by him that he was not willing to take responsibility for any damage that may be caused to the balcony during course of testing. Report of the - Executive Engineer was forwarded to the District Magistrate by Superintending Engineer by his letter dated 3rd Aug. 1981. It was mentioned in this letter that the landlord had threatened the P. W. D. and the District Magistrate not to carry out the load testing and the Additional Chief Engineer had telephoned the Executive Engineer not to carry out the testing of balcony, When the petitioner came to know of it he wrote a letter on 21st July 1981 to Superintending Engineer that as there was no injunction operating in favour of the owner there was no difficulty in carrying out the load testing. While these proceedings were going on the licensing authority asked the petitioner to furnish an indemnity bond undertaking that if any damage was caused during testing of the balcony they would be responsible for the same. Direction was complied with and indemnity bond was also furnished. Thereafter he again requested the licensing authority that he having complied with all the directions issued from time to time licence may be renewed and he be permitted to run cinema at least on the ground floor. On 4-1-1982 the District Magistrate wrote a letter to the State Government, in reply to its query made on 4th Nov. 1981 that as petitioners had furnished indemnity bond for any possible loss in the load testing of balcony, a letter had been sent to P. W. D. that testing may be carried out on 20th June 1981 and comment may be made in light of earlier decisions by high-power committee. It was further pointed out that petitioners had given an undertaking that if licence of ground floor was granted they shall not keep any weight on the balcony. In this respect P. W. D. had already submitted that licence could be granted to the petitioners if the balcony was cardoned off and then it would not cause any endanger. He, therefore, requested the Government to issue necessary directions in this regard. On 24th Jan. 1982 the State Government sent a telex to District Magistrate Varanasi that as petitioners have already submitted indemnity bond the Executive Engineer of P. W. D. Varanasi should furnish a report within two weeks. He, therefore, requested the Government to issue necessary directions in this regard. On 24th Jan. 1982 the State Government sent a telex to District Magistrate Varanasi that as petitioners have already submitted indemnity bond the Executive Engineer of P. W. D. Varanasi should furnish a report within two weeks. On 27th May 1982 the Joint Secretary Institutional (Finance) enquired from District Magistrate if fee of Rs. 250/- as charges of examination of indemnity bond by Legal Remembrancer office has been deposited by petitioners, if business of cinema was being run by partnership, copy of power of attorney held by Bulbul Bannerji, who was the landlord of premises of Bharti cinema, details of his residential address etc. The District Magistrate was asked to submit report within two months. It is significant to note that subject matter of this letter as mentioned in it was technical testing of balcony of Bharti cinema. It had nothing to do with ground floor. And a copy of this letter of Joint Secretary (Finance) was sent by licensing authority to petitioners. He replied to the necessary quarry made in it. It was further pointed out that despite clear instructions of State Government he has not been granted licence for ground floor, which has caused immense loss to him. Request was made to grant licence for ground floor immediately and got the inspection of balcony completed. It was also pointed out that they had waited 'for two years, and if an early decision was not taken then they shall be left with no option except to approach the High Court. Despite this letter licensing authority did not take any step with the result that petitioners had to approach this Court by way of this petition. 7. When the petition was presented on 19th Aug. 1982 a Bench of this Court directed it to be listed on 2nd Sept. 1982. Standing Counsel was also asked to obtain necessary instructions in the meantime. The petition appears to have come up again on 21st Oct. 1982, when a Bench of this Court passed an order to the following effect. "We order the respondents to finally dispose of petitioners' application for grant of cinema licence within a month from to day or show cause. Petition may be listed for order on 23- 11-82. The petition appears to have come up again on 21st Oct. 1982, when a Bench of this Court passed an order to the following effect. "We order the respondents to finally dispose of petitioners' application for grant of cinema licence within a month from to day or show cause. Petition may be listed for order on 23- 11-82. In case any difficulty is felt with regard to the licence covering balcony also, the petitioners' request for the grant (of) licence about ground floor only at least must be finally disposed of within this period." The licensing authority however, did not pass any order but filed a short affidavit explaining the circumstances in which the order could not be complied with. When the petition was listed again on 25th Nov. 1982 the Bench expressed its strong displeasure to the attitude adopted by licensing authority. It observed as under: "We cannot refrain from expressing .our disapproval of the pleas taken therein. There is no satisfactory reason as to why our previous order dated 21-10-1982 should not have been complied with 'in toto'. However, taking a lenient view of the matter, we grant one more opportunity to the licensing authority to comply with our directions." Opposite parties were further directed to file detailed counter-affidavit on or before next date i.e. 7th Dec. 1982, explaining major points of controversy which emerged from the affidavits filed by the parties. The Bench further pointed out amongst other things that the learned Standing Counsel could not draw their attention to any provision in the Act or Rules which prohibited the grant of licence in respect of ground floor of cinema after excluding balcony. The opposite parties were directed to file detailed counter-affidavit and if there was no satisfactory explanation on various aspects pointed out in the order, then the Bench observed that it shall be constrained to pass a peremtory order requiring full compliance of the previous order. 8. In response to this order detailed counter-affidavit which is described as supplementary counter-affidavit was filed. It has been explained in this affidavit that under the provisions of Cinematograph Act and Rules it was duty of the licensing authority to ensure adequate precautions as contemplated in S. 5 of the Act. 8. In response to this order detailed counter-affidavit which is described as supplementary counter-affidavit was filed. It has been explained in this affidavit that under the provisions of Cinematograph Act and Rules it was duty of the licensing authority to ensure adequate precautions as contemplated in S. 5 of the Act. It is stated that admittedly the building and balcony are one and unless they were declared in fit condition by expert engineer of the P. W. D. it could not be considered to be safe, and as almost half of the ground floor of the said building was under the aforesaid balcony it may endanger human lives if it collapsed. Risk could not be taken for granting licence in respect of any part of the building, namely ground floor. It has been explained in other paragraph that load testing could not be carried out and the indemnity bond which was filed by Sri Bulbul Bannerji was not acceptable as it was not by the licensees themselves. On 14th March 1983 the licensing authority passed the final order, copy of which has been filed along with an application with a prayer to quash the same. The material portion of the order is as below : "After careful perusal of record, the application of licensees and various provisions of Cinematograph Rules, I find that since load testing has not been done so far and there is no provision for grant of licence for ground floor only, the application for grant of licence of Bharti Cinema, Assi. Varanasi is rejected in the interest of public safety. However, the applicant can apply afresh after load testing could be carried out and -his case shall be considered on merits:". 9. Chronological narration above is demonstrative of unfair treatment to which the petitioner has been subjected. Every effort of his to remove defects pointed out either by 'Entertainment Tax Authorities or by licensing authority to facilitate and expedite renewal of licence, stood frustrated either because of inaction or flimsy objection raised from time to time. It appears the licensing authority had made it a prestige issue not to renew the petitioners' licence, come what may. Every effort of his to remove defects pointed out either by 'Entertainment Tax Authorities or by licensing authority to facilitate and expedite renewal of licence, stood frustrated either because of inaction or flimsy objection raised from time to time. It appears the licensing authority had made it a prestige issue not to renew the petitioners' licence, come what may. The initial irregularities pointed out by Entertainment Tax Authorities was not only removed and the directions issued by various authorities was complied with, but they were accepted as well by the State Government and the licensing authority was directed to renew the licence. But it was of no avail. In fact but for intervention by State Government once in April and then again in November the petitioner's licence would not have been renewed, and he would not have been able to run the cinema even till 2nd Feb. 1980. After construction of seventh laterine and putting galvanised tin sheets on wooden planks to render it fire-proof in compliance to State Government's direction the petitioner was entitled to renewal of its licence. But the licensing authority instead of renewing the licence issued show cause notice to petitioner to explain his conduct of putting galvanised sheets on balcony despite injunction order granted in favour of owner. As licensing authority he might have been justified in insisting that petitioner should not have disobeyed the injunction of civil court but once it was explained he should have been more concerned with rendering of balcony fire-proof, rather than it having been done in violation. of injunction order for which petitioner was answerable to the court. In any case initial irregularity pointed out by Entertainment Tax Authorities was complied within time allowed by State Government. In between the licensing authority while renewing petitioner's licence for six months in obedience to State Government's direction raised fresh objections, two of which were not found of any substance by State Government itself, but third namely, whether balcony of petitioner was able to sustain 140 Lbs. per sq. feet was such that no one could ignore it as it touched safety of cine goers. Merits apart it is not clear how the licensing authority suddenly raised as it was not raised earlier not even by the mobile squad. It is not claimed that any inspection was made by the licensing authority or any report was made to it. feet was such that no one could ignore it as it touched safety of cine goers. Merits apart it is not clear how the licensing authority suddenly raised as it was not raised earlier not even by the mobile squad. It is not claimed that any inspection was made by the licensing authority or any report was made to it. This raises seasonable apprehension that somebody was working from behind. Even then the petitioner left no stone unturned to get the load testing of the balcony carried out. The one done by P. W. D. Department in absence of petitioner was not approved by the Addl. District Magistrate as it did not take into account the cement and mortar etc. The State Government also agreed to it. The other as recommended by him was never done for no fault of petitioner. Either the department did not reach, for the test or it was prevented by the owner who obtained injunction orders which were vacated latter. 10. Since the cinema was closed and petitioner was placed in helpless situation due to difficulties created by owner on one hand and by licensing authority on the other he requested the authorities to renew his licence for ground floor at least. A very reasonable request. It was acceded to by State Government as well. But it is astonishing that the licensing authority not only did not accept the request on its own but even ignored specific directions of State Government issued on 17th Oct. 1980. No Explanation has been given for not complying with this order. Rather the matter was kept hanging for more than one and half year leaving petitioner to run from pillar to post and so-called high power committee met in June, 1981 only to discuss the matters if licence for ground floor only could be granted. The machinery of licensing authority geared up again when the State Government intervened in Nov. 1981. But it was again given a go-by when in Jan. 1982 the licensing authority even after directions and intervention by higher authorities observed that as petitioner had given undertaking to cardone off balcony the licence of ground floor could be granted provided the State Government issued directions to that effect. One fails to appreciate this. The Government had already issued directions. 1982 the licensing authority even after directions and intervention by higher authorities observed that as petitioner had given undertaking to cardone off balcony the licence of ground floor could be granted provided the State Government issued directions to that effect. One fails to appreciate this. The Government had already issued directions. But instead of complying with it the licensing authority not only delayed and deprived of what was due to petitioner but went on flouting orders of State Government. And when State Government made certain queries in May 1982 in respect of load testing of balcony it provided him another opportunity to slumber over the-matter not realising that it was not only petitioner but State Government which was also being put to loss as according to its affidavit filed in a suit by the owner it estimated to be six lakhs. 11. But worst was yet to come. When petitioner approached this Court and it was insisted that the licencing authority should pass the order he not only went back on his own letter of Jan. 1982 but rejected the application for renewal. Each and every reason given in his order is either contrary to law or exhibits complete misapprehension about the exercise of power by licencing authority under U. P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Act). S. 3 debars a person from exhibiting by means of a cinematograph elsewhere than in a place licenced under the Act. And place has been given a very wide meaning in S. 2(d) as including even, `a house, building, tent or other structure and any description of transport whatsoever'. Under section 5 the Licencing Authority that is the District Magistrate has to be satisfied amongst other things that adequate precautions had been taken in the place for safety of persons attending the exhibition (clause (b)) and the grant of licence was not otherwise contrary to the public interest(clause (c)). Application for grant of licence has to be made under R. 4 of the U. P. Cinematograph Rules 1951 giving the particulars mentioned therein. And the Licencing Authority has to be satisfied under R. 7 before granting or renewing the licence that requirements of Rules have been complied with. R. 8 lays down requirements which a 'permanent building should satisfy before licence is granted in respect of it. Its sub-cl. And the Licencing Authority has to be satisfied under R. 7 before granting or renewing the licence that requirements of Rules have been complied with. R. 8 lays down requirements which a 'permanent building should satisfy before licence is granted in respect of it. Its sub-cl. (xi) requires the floor of all buildings, stair-cases, passages and gangways shall be of sufficient strength to carry 120 Lbs live load material'. No provision in the Act or Rules prohibit renewal of licence of cinema which under Cl. (iii) of R. 2 of Rules 1951 means entire place licenced for Cinematograph licence and includes all appurtenant plant and apparatus located therein if any part of the `Auditorium' defined in sub-cl. (ii) is excluded from it because it is under repair or is being subjected to inspection provided the remaining portion can be used for Cinematograph exhibition without endangering safetey of cinegoers. Auditorium under Rules is only portion of licenced premises. Seating accommodation under R. 14 is permitted only on ground and first floor. And what should be the landing, door stairs, lobby and corridors if the seating accommodation is for four hundred or more is provided by sub-cl. (iv) of R. 8. The proviso to this sub-rule further lays down that for the sub-rule that is (iv) the balcony shall be treated as separate accommodation. If this separate accommodation is rendered defective for any reason and the licensee is required to remove that defect which may take some time can the licence be denied for remaining portion? Yes, provided it poses hazard to the persons attending exhibition of cinema or it is not in public interest. The licensing authority has not found _ that by permitting exhibition of cinema in ground floor it would have been in violation of cl. (b) of sub-s. (1) of S. 5 of the Act. Absence of any provision in the Act or Rules coupled with wide discretion of licensing authority necessarily required him to act reasonably and carefully. But in that he failed miserably. In any case there was no justification to deny it once the State Government has agreed to it. Even the other reason given by him namely it was not in public interest to say the., least is unwarranted. It is a well known concept. It is not a handle provided to licensing authority to indulge in arm twisting. In any case there was no justification to deny it once the State Government has agreed to it. Even the other reason given by him namely it was not in public interest to say the., least is unwarranted. It is a well known concept. It is not a handle provided to licensing authority to indulge in arm twisting. But a power reposed in him to be exercised in the interest of society. 12. Before parting with this case it maybe observed that learned standing counsel had opposed hearing of this petition as petitioners had alternative remedy of approaching State Government. True but State Government had been associated with the development of this case at every stage. In fact it had issued directions to the licensing authority to renew licence at least of ground floor but he has been ignoring it. In these circumstances, the remedy of approaching State Government was of no consequence. 13. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 14th March 1983 passed by the licensing authority is quashed. Licensing authority is directed to consider application for renewel of licence of cinema excluding balcony as directed by the State Government within one month. As regards balcony he shall get it tested within a period of two months from the date of production of order by Public Works Department Varanasi and if it is found that balcony can bear the load of 120 pounds per sq. feet, as laid down in cl. (xi) of R. 3 of the U. P. Cinematograph Rules, there necessary orders for renewal of licence including balcony shall be made. The petitioner shall be entitled to its costs.