JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J. - These two writ petitions raise identical questions and as such are being decided by a common order. 2. The State Government issued a notifications dated 10th November, 1978, whereby in order to provide incentive for construction of cinema houses in the areas specified therein exemption from entertainment tax under the U.P. Entertainment Tax Act, 1937, was granted in the manner provided for in the said notification. A copy of the said notification has been filed as Annexure 1 to each of these two writ petitions. It inter alia provides that the exemption from the entertainment tax would be available only to the owners of such newly constructed cinema houses who had obtained licence by 31st of December, 1981, to give cinematograph exhibitions. The case of the petitioner in each of these two writ petitions hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, is that even though all the necessary formalities for obtaining a licence had been complied with by the petitioners prior to 31st December, 1981, and application had also been made for the grant of the requisite licence, the licence to the petitioners was granted only on 15th July, 1982. The case of the petitioners further is that they prayed for the grant of the exemption contemplated by the notification referred to above but the exemption was refused to them on the ground that they had not obtained licence before 31st December, 1981 which was the condition precedent for the grant of the aforesaid exemption. It is by these orders, whereby the grant of exemption has been refused to the petitioners, that the petitioners are aggrieved and have instituted these two writ petitions with the prayer that necessary directions may be issued to the respondents to grant to the petitioners the exemption contemplated by the notification referred to above. 3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits in each of these two writ petitions have been filed and we,are of opinion that these writ petitions deserve to be finally decided at this very stage as contemplated by proviso 2 Rule 2, Chapter XXII, Rules of Court. We have accordingly heard counsel for the parties on the merits of these writ petitions. 4. As seen above it is not disputed that the licence to the petitioners was granted on 15th July. 1982, i.e. long after 31st December, 1981, the date mentioned in the notification. We have accordingly heard counsel for the parties on the merits of these writ petitions. 4. As seen above it is not disputed that the licence to the petitioners was granted on 15th July. 1982, i.e. long after 31st December, 1981, the date mentioned in the notification. On the language of the notification, therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to the exemption claimed by them in pursuance of that notification. What has been urged by counsel for the petitioners is that since the purpose of the notification was to grant exemption to owners of new cinema houses by way of incentive and since the petitioners had constructed their cinema houses prior to 31st December, 1981, it was of no consequence that the licence, even though applied for before 31st December 1981, was granted not by that date but long thereafter. In other words the petitioners are claiming exemption on the basis of equity. In our opinion it is not possible to direct the respondents to grant exemption on the basis of the aforesaid notification on the basis of equity alone. Not only that it is settled law that under the taxing statutes principles of equity have hardly any place. exemption from the tax can be claimed only if the conditions precedent for the grant of the exemption have been fulfilled. In Commr. of Sales Tax v. Behari Lal Ram Krishna 1970 UPTC 730 : AIR 1971 All 17 a Full Bench of this court held that before exemption from tax can he claimed the person claiming exemption must strictly fulfil the conditions underlying the grant of exemption and comply with all the requirements necessary before such grant is made. The same view was taken by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Parameshwaran Match Works, 1975 UPTC 243 : AIR 1974 SC 2349 where it was held that concessional rate of duty can be availed of only by those who satisfy the conditions which have been laid down under the notification. Since the condition precedent in the instant cases namely of obtaining a licence prior to 31st December, 1981, had not been fulfilled by the petitioners they were obviously not entitled to the exemption under the notification referred to above. 5. It was then urged by counsel for the petitioners that when every formality had been completed by 31st December 1981 licence should have been granted before that date. 5. It was then urged by counsel for the petitioners that when every formality had been completed by 31st December 1981 licence should have been granted before that date. Before dealing with this submission it may be pointed out that no plea of mala fide whatsoever against the licencing authority has been pressed before us nor has any such allegation been brought to our notice even in the writ petition. It is not possible for this Court to substitute the requirement or the condition precedent of the notification, namely, that the person claiming the benefit of the exemption should have obtained the licence before 31st December, 1981. It is as such not possible for us to say that the benefit of exemption should be available even to those who had made application for grant of the licence prior to that date but the licence was granted thereafter. Nor has any principle of law been brought to our notice on the basis whereof it may be possible to take the view that even though the licence was granted to the petitioners on 15th July, 1982, the same shall be deemed to have been granted prior to 31st December. 1981, simply because the applications for the grant of licence had been made before that date. 6. That apart there are certain other relevant factors which are necessary to be considered at this stage to meet the submission made by counsel for the petitioners. Rule 4, U.P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951, deals with application for a licence. The said rule requires that an application for the grant of a new licence for the cinematograph exhibition shall be made to the Licensing Authority and shall contain full particulars of the ownership of the premises and the cinematograph machine and shall be accompanied with the documents referred to in the said rule. Para 10 of Writ Petition, 51 of 1984, filed by M/s Jyoti Talkies indicates that the certificates by the Medical Health Officer, Regional Fire Officer and Films Division and the report of the engineer with respect to the completion of the construction were made available on 29-12-1981,30-12-1981 and 28-12-1981 and 30-12-1981 respectively. Para 10 of Writ Petition, 51 of 1984, filed by M/s Jyoti Talkies indicates that the certificates by the Medical Health Officer, Regional Fire Officer and Films Division and the report of the engineer with respect to the completion of the construction were made available on 29-12-1981,30-12-1981 and 28-12-1981 and 30-12-1981 respectively. The date of filing of the application for licence has not been stated in the writ petition, but even if it is accepted that the said application was made prior to 31st December, 1981, it could not be treated as a valid application for licence unless it was accompanied with the certificates and the report referred to in pars 10 of the writ petition because that was the requirement of R. 4, U.P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951. As such if other requirements had been complied with the application for licence could be treated to have been made on 30th December, 1981, by which date the aforesaid certificates and report were made available. Further in para 8 of the counter-affidavit of Devendra Kumar, Entertainment Tax Inspector, Agra, it has been stated that the petitioner M/s Jyoti Talkies, Agra, had applied on 29th December, 1981, for inspection and the Electrical Inspector fixed 2nd January, 1982, as the date of inspection. This reveals that even other requirements for the grant of a licence had not been fulfilled before 31st December, 1981. 7. The case of M/s. Sangeeta Cinema, petitioner in Writ Petition 52 of 1984, is no better. In this case the application for the grant of the licence was made, as is apparent from para 14 of the counter-affidavit of Guru Prasad Ahirwal, on 28th December, 1981, and had been received on that date at 4 p.m. The said pars of the counter-affidavit further reveals that the building of the aforesaid cinema was not completed even up to 28th December, 1981. It appears that plastering and whitewashing etc., had not been done in the manner required. In para 16 of the counter- affidavit it has further been stated that only 108 seats in balcony and 100 seats in first class were available at the time of inspection whereas the approved site plan of the cinema contained a capacity of about 460 seats in both the classes. Para 16 of the rejoinder-affidavit contains reply to para 16 of the counter-affidavit. Para 16 of the rejoinder-affidavit contains reply to para 16 of the counter-affidavit. Even though in the beginning of para 16 of the rejoinder- affidavit it has been stated that the contents of para 16 of the counter-affidavit are not admitted, there is no specific assertion that it was incorrect that only 108 seats in balcony and 100 seats in the first class were available as stated in the counter-affidavit. In this view of the matter it is clear that it was not possible to grant the licence prior to 31st December, 1981, to the petitioners. 8. Lastly it was urged by counsel for the petitioners that the requirement of obtaining a licence by 31st December, 1981, as contained in the notification referred to above was only directory and not mandatory. We find it difficult to agree with this submission either. Counsel for the petitioners in this connection placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Arun Kumar v. Chancellor, Allahabad University 1984 All LJ 427. That was a case under the U.P. State Universities Act. Sub-section (10) of S. 31 of that Act laid down that "no selection for any appointment under this section shall be made except after advertisement of the vacancy in at least three issues of two newspapers having adequate circulation in Uttar Pradesh." It was held that the first part that no selection for any appointment under this section shall be made except after advertisement' was mandatory whereas the second part which required making of "advertisement of the vacancy in at least three issues of two newspapers having adequate circulation in Uttar Pradesh" was directory in nature. In our opinion the decision in the case of Arun Kumar (supra) is of no assistance in the instant cases. Here as already pointed out above obtaining of the licence prior to 31st December, 1981, was the condition precedent for grant of exemption and exemption in view of the decisions in the cases of Behari Lal Ram Krishna ( AIR 1971 All 17 ) (FB) and Parameshwaran Match Works ( AIR 1974 SC 2349 ) (supra) could not be granted unless the condition precedent had been fulfilled. 9. No other point has been pressed. 10. In the result we find no merit in these writ petitions. They are accordingly dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.