K. S. PUTTASWAMY, J. ( 1 ) ADJOINING Shivajinagar Bus Stand of Bangalore City or near about that, there is a permanent cinema theatre called "sangeet theatre" which is the petitioner before this court licensed by the District Magistrate, bangalore District, Bangalore ('dm') under the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act of 1964 ('the Act' ). From time to time, the said licence has been renewed and shows are being exhibited in that theatre in terms of the said licence thereto. ( 2 ) ON 9-5-1980, the petitioner made an application before the DM for according his permission to construct an additional mini cinema theatre on the very existing building of the existing theatre. On an examination of the same, the DM by his official Memorandum No. NAG (2)ENT. 19/ 80-81 dated 28-12-1981 (Annexure-D1) granted permission subject to various conditions stipulated therein, two of which with which alone we are concerned, read thus:" (4) That the structural drawings and building construction specifications should be got approved from the Executive engineer, PWD, before the execution of the construction work. The plans are also approved and returned herewith for taking further action. Necessary licence should be got obtained from the Corporation of the City of Bangalore and construction work to be made under the supervision of the Executive engineer, Building Division, Bangalore, as per Rules. "evidently treating these conditions as innocuous and expecting smooth sailing, the petitioner approached the Corporation of the City of Bangalore ('corporation') respondent-1 - with necessary plan and other documents to accord its approval or sanction for the same. But, the corporation by its Endorsement No. LP 7084/81-82 dated 23-4-1982 (Annexure-H) has rejected the said application. In this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the said order made by the Corporation. ( 3 ) THE petitioner has urged that the conditions imposed by the DM and the refusal of sanction by the Corporation to construct the building were not authorised by the act and the Rules. ( 4 ) WHILE issuing rule nisi on 21-6-1982, this Court granted an ex parte stay of the operation of the order made by the Corporation. I. A. Nos. I and II filed by the corporation to vacate the ex parte stay and grant an injunction restraining the petitioner from proceeding with the construction of the building was also refused by me on 24. 9. 1982. I. A. Nos. I and II filed by the corporation to vacate the ex parte stay and grant an injunction restraining the petitioner from proceeding with the construction of the building was also refused by me on 24. 9. 1982. Against the said order made by on 24-9-1982, the Corporation filed an appeal in Writ Appeal No. 4604 of 1982 in which the petitioner gave an undertaking not to commence the shows till the disposal of this writ petition. On that undertaking of the petitioner, the appellate bench did not interfere with the order made by me. As a result of these orders, the petitioner has completed the construction of the building but has not obtained licence from the DM under the Act. ( 5 ) IN their joint return, respondents 1 and 2 have justified the conditions imposed by the DM and the further order made by them rejecting the application made by the petitioner. In justification of their action, respondents 1 and 2 have relied on Section 304 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act of 1976 (the 1976 Act ). ( 6 ) RESPONDENT-3 has produced the records and has resisted the writ petition. ( 7 ) SRI K. S. Desai. learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contends that the conditions imposed by the DM under the Act on the basis of which the Corporation had rejected the application were without jurisdiction and illegal. ( 8 ) SRIYUTHS R. C. Castelino, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and h. L. Dattu, learned High Court Govern- merit Pleader, appearing for respondent-3, refuting the contention of Sri Desai, sought to support the conditions imposed by the dm and the order made by the DM. Learned counsel for the respondents also contend that the petitioner who had not challenged the conditions imposed by the dm and had even complied with the same, cannot challenge the same at the hearing. ( 9 ) SRIYUTHS Castelino and Dattu are right in their contention that the petitioner had not specifically taken exception to the conditions imposed by the DM and had not sought for their quashing also, though it has been contended that the matter should be exclusively regulated by the Act only. ( 9 ) SRIYUTHS Castelino and Dattu are right in their contention that the petitioner had not specifically taken exception to the conditions imposed by the DM and had not sought for their quashing also, though it has been contended that the matter should be exclusively regulated by the Act only. But, that by itself does not touch on the power of this Court to permit the petitioner to challenge the same, which does not involve any investigation of the facts and is a pure question of law and properly mould the reliefs to be granted in the case. I see no merit in this objection urged by the respondents and reject the same. I, therefore, proceed to examine the contention on merits. ( 10 ) THE Act and the Rules provide for what is popularly called advocated by industry in the country as 'single window agency licence system' or licensing by any one authority/officer dealing with all aspects of licensing for the establishment of an industry. Section 11 of the Act, in particular sub-section (2) of that Section, effectuates 'a single window agency licensing' concept in regulating the exhibition of cinemas and licensing of places thereto under the Act. ( 11 ) SECTION 11 (2) of the Act commences with a non-obstante clause. A non-obstante clause is generally employed to give overriding effect to the provision made in that provision. In clear and unambiguous terms, section 11 (2) provides that the licensing of places for location of cinemas shall be regulated by what is provided in the Act and the Rules and not by other Municipal Laws regulating the construction of buildings in the concerned local area. ( 12 ) SECTION 11 (2) is not in conflict with other laws governing municipal corporations and municipalities in the State, in particular, Section 304 of the 1976 Act to which i will also make a detailed reference at a later stage. ( 13 ) WHEN one examines the scheme and object of the Act, in particular, Section 11 and the Rules made thereto to carry out the purposes of the Act, it is crystal clear that the sole and exclusive authority to grant permission and subject the same to such conditions as that law provides, was the DM alone and that power could not have been delegated by him to any other authority. On this conclusion itself, the condition imposed by the DM was wholly unauthorised and illegal. ( 14 ) SECTION 304 of the 1976 Act on which strong reliance is placed by Sri Castelino reads thus:"304. Restriction on the power sanction construction of a place of entertainment in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any rule or bye- law made thereunder, the construction of, or any addition to any building of public entertainment or any addition thereto, shall not, except with the previous approval of the Government, be sanctioned by the commissioner or the standing committee, if the site of, or proposed site for, such building is - (a) within a radius of two hundred meters from - (i) any residential institution attached to a recognised educational institution such as a college, high school or girls school; or (ii) a public hospital with a large indoor patient ward; or (iii) an orphanage containing one hundred or more inmates; or (b) in any thickly populated residential area which is either exclusively residential or reserved or used generally for residential as distinguished from business purposes; or (c) in any area reserved for residential purposes by any housing or planning scheme or otherwise under any enactment: provided that no permission to construct any building intended to be used for cinematograph exhibition shall be given unless the standing committee is satisfied that sanction to the plans and specifications have been obtained in accordance with the karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964 (Karnataka Act 23 of 1964) and the rules made thereunder. "section 304 prohibits the construction of any alteration to any building of public entertainment or any alteration thereto except with the previous sanction of the commissioner. Sri Castelino suggests that a cinema is also a place of entertainment and that also would fall within the meaning of the terms 'building of public entertainment' occurring in this section and that has to be treated as an additional requirement to be complied with in the construction of a cinema building including additions and alterations of an existing cinema building in the City of Bangalore. In my view, the terms 'any building of public entertainment' occurring in this section which are the key words cannot be read as places of all and every entertainment including cinemas for which special and exclusive provisions are made in the Act. In my view, the terms 'any building of public entertainment' occurring in this section which are the key words cannot be read as places of all and every entertainment including cinemas for which special and exclusive provisions are made in the Act. The construction suggested by Sri Castelino would set at naught the single window agency licensing consciously and deliberately created by the act. Without any doubt, the said construction would also create duplication of work as also control by more than one authority. The Act does not contemplate defusion of power and authority. A proviso cannot normally enlarge the scope of the main section. On this and other principles regulating the construction of a proviso appended to a section, this proviso to Section 304 is of no avail to sustain the case of the Corporation at all. On this analysis, it follows that Section 304 of the 1976 Act excludes cinema buildings in the City of bangalore from its purview. ( 15 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner had constructed a permanent cinema theatre and is also exhibiting films thereto in accordance with the terms and conditions licensed by the DM under the Act and had now sought to put up another floor over the same and operate mini theatre thereon the very existing building. In such a case, the relevant rule that regulates the same is rule 25 (3) of the Rules which reads thus:" (3) Any person who intends to construct within the licenced premises one or more additional cinemas adjacent to or on the ground-floor or on the first floor of the existing cinema or proposed cinema for which an application has been made under rule 25 need not obtain a separate No objection certificate. However, other provisions relating to a permanent cinema theatre in these rules shall be applicable mutatis mutandis to such an additional cinema theatre". In case of an addition as in the present case, the rules expressly dispense with the requirements of obtaining an NOC before locating a new cinema theatre and constructing a building thereon. The Rule provides for obtaining the prior permission of the DM for making an addition for which purpose, he has necessarily to annex building plans for the same. In case of an addition as in the present case, the rules expressly dispense with the requirements of obtaining an NOC before locating a new cinema theatre and constructing a building thereon. The Rule provides for obtaining the prior permission of the DM for making an addition for which purpose, he has necessarily to annex building plans for the same. As in the case of an NOC in the case of according prior permission also for an addition over to an existing building, the sole and exclusive authority to decide the same is only the dm. Before finally deciding the application, he can necessarily consult all the authorities referred to for grant of an noc. ( 16 ) IN granting or refusing the permission sought under sub-rule (3) the licensing authority, viz. , the DM who is the exclusive and sole authority to decide the same, must address himself to the factors enumerated in the provisions of the Act, the rules and in particular, sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 25 and decide Ahem one way or the other. The Act arid the Rules that confer exclusive power on the DM do not enable him to abdicate his powers in favour of any other authority under the act or subjecting his permission to the permission to be granted by any other authority under the Act. Before granting his permission, it was open to the DM to consult all such authorities as the law provides. examine their opinions and accept or reject all or any of them as the circumstances justify. But, the DM having granted his permission to the petitioner could not have undone the same by conferring power on some other authority like the Executive engineer, PWD or the Corporation. Without any doubt, the conditions imposed by him extracted earlier runs counter to the act and the Rules and were unauthorised and illegal and calls for interference. ( 17 ) ON the above conclusion, it necessarily follows that the application made by petitioner before the Corporation was superfluous and the order made thereto was equally unauthorised and illegal. On this short ground, the impugned order requires to be quashed. ( 18 ) EARLIER, I have noticed that the petitioner has completed the construction of the building. ( 17 ) ON the above conclusion, it necessarily follows that the application made by petitioner before the Corporation was superfluous and the order made thereto was equally unauthorised and illegal. On this short ground, the impugned order requires to be quashed. ( 18 ) EARLIER, I have noticed that the petitioner has completed the construction of the building. ( 19 ) ON the above conclusion, it is necessary to quash the conditions imposed by the DM extracted earlier and the rejection order made by the Corporation and direct the DM to examine any application already made or to be made by the petitioner for issue of necessary licence for exhibition of films in the mini theatre. In so doing, it is open to the DM to satisfy himself, whether the construction of the building and the facilities provided therein are in conformity with the Act and the Rules or not. ( 20 ) IN the light of my above discussion, i make the following orders and directions: (I) I quash the conditions imposed by the dm in his Official Memorandum No. NAG (2) ENT. 19/80-81 dated 28-12-1981 (Anne- xure-D1) extracted in full in para 2 of this order and the consequantial endorsement no. LP 7084/81-82 dated 23-4-1982 (Anne- xure-H) of the Corporation. (II) I issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to the District Magistrate, Bangalore - respondent-3 - to dispose of any application already made or to be made by the petitioner -for issue of a licence for exhibition of films in the mini theatre already constructed over the existing permanent "sangeet Theatre" without reference to the conditions imposed by him and quashed in this order and the order made by the Corporation thereto, but only in accordance with law and the observations made in this order. ( 21 ) WRIT petition is disposed of in the above terms. But, in the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .