JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution challenging the order of the District Magistrate cancelling the cinema licence and rejecting the application for renewal, and the order of the State Government dismissing the appeal against that order. ( 2. ) LATE Shankarlal Rathi was granted licence for exhibition of films in the premises known as Vasant Talkies at Durg under section 4 of the m. P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1952. The premises belong to respondent no. 4 Bajranglal Roongta. Earlier he was using the premises as a godown for storing Tendu leaves. In 1959 the premises were taken on rent by s. L. Rathi for converting into a cinema theatre after making necessary reconstruction. The cinema licence was obtained in 1959. The State government framed M. P. Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1972, for regulating grant of cinema licence. S. L. Rathi held cinema licence No. 22 of 1972 which was renewed from year to year up to 31-3-1981. In February 1981, he applied for renewal of the licence. The respondent No. 4 also made an application to the licensing authority objecting for the renewal saying that his lease has already expired on 31-10-1975 and he is not in favour of giving any consent for renewal of the licence. He also mentioned that after the premises are vacated, he would reconstruct the building and would run a modern aircooled cinema. Necessary permission he has already obtained from the Town Planning Department. The District Magistrate got a report from the Deputy Collector dated 8-4-1981 wherein amongst others it was mentioned that two walls and a pillar have been constructed for giving support to the balcony which is giving way but these construction are causing inconvenience to the ladies as their seats are just below the balcony. There is also no proper ventilation. Since the application for renewal was going to take some time, the District Magistrate temporarily renewed the licence up to 31-3-1981 and then provisionally up to 31-3-1982 pending disposal of the application for renewal. The respondent No. 4 filed another application before the District Magistrate pointing out certain defects in the cinema hall. There is also no proper ventilation. Since the application for renewal was going to take some time, the District Magistrate temporarily renewed the licence up to 31-3-1981 and then provisionally up to 31-3-1982 pending disposal of the application for renewal. The respondent No. 4 filed another application before the District Magistrate pointing out certain defects in the cinema hall. The cinema building was again inspected by the Additional collector and by his report dated 7-8-1981 he submitted that the balcony is in a dangerous condition and it may fall down at any moment and there is no roof in the staircase for going to the balcony. The District Magistrate also got a report dated 17-8-1981 from the Executive Engineer, P. W. D. who pointed out that there were hairline cracks in the building and also in the balcony, tin roofs have got rotted and may be blown out during storm. The District Magistrate, therefore, cancelled the licence and refused renewal by order dated 14-10-1981 holding that the building was unsafe. S. L. Rathi preferred an appeal before the State Government under section 5 of the Act and the order of the District Magistrate was set aside by order dated 5-11-1981 by the appellate authority saying that some of the defects pointed out in the impugned order were not of a serious nature entailing cancellation of the licence but there is no proper enquiry regarding the condition of the cinema building and as to whether the defects pointed out by the executive Engineer could be rectified or not or the building has to be reconstructed. After the case was remanded, the District Magistrate got a fresh report of the Executive Engineer on 27-11-1981 by adverting to the directions of the appellate, authority and he also himself examined the cinema building on 1-12-1981. Both found that there were cracks in the floor of the balcony, there were vertical cracks in the main, walls of the building passing through and through the walls, the roof tins got rotted and some of the tins have come out and they are not properly secured. Two walls and a pillar have been constructed to give support to the balcony without obtaining prior sanction of the licensing authority but this is not sufficient to bear the weight and these constructions are causing inconvenience to the ladies who sit just below the balcony. Two walls and a pillar have been constructed to give support to the balcony without obtaining prior sanction of the licensing authority but this is not sufficient to bear the weight and these constructions are causing inconvenience to the ladies who sit just below the balcony. S. L. Rathi filed an application for examining Chief Architect, Chief Engineer of the M. P. Government, Chief Architect of the Government of India and other witnesses to correctly ascertain the condition of the building. This application was rejected by the District Magistrate saying that the evidence of the Chief Architect is of no use because he was not in a position to state about the condition of the building for which there is already a report of the Executive Engineer. The licence was cancelled and renewal refused on 13-6-1982 as the District Magistrate found the building to be in a dangerous condition. ( 3. ) S. L. Rathi then preferred another appeal before the State Government. During pendency of the appeal, S. L. Rathi died and his son Murlidhar was substituted in his place by overruling the objection that the appeal has abated. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 14-7-1982 holding that all reasonable opportunity was given to the licensee by the District magistrate and concurring with the finding that the building is unsafe for running the cinema. S. L. Rathi then preferred M. P. No. 903 /82 before this Court which was allowed on 3-3-1983 saying that there is violation of principle of natural justice and without giving opportunity to the licensee to prove his case that the building is in a good condition, his application for renewal could not have been rejected. The case was, therefore, remanded to the District Magistrate to decide the application afresh within a period of 3 months in accordance with law. S. L. Rathi in the meanwhile filed an application for renewal of his licence for the year 1982-83. It may be mentioned that because of the stay S. L. Rathi continued to run the cinema till the application was finally disposed of. After the remand, s. L. Rathi filed an application for examining as many as 8 witnesses in support of his contention. Since he did not pay any process, on the next date of hearing he was directed to specify which particular witnesses he wants to examine and should pay the process. After the remand, s. L. Rathi filed an application for examining as many as 8 witnesses in support of his contention. Since he did not pay any process, on the next date of hearing he was directed to specify which particular witnesses he wants to examine and should pay the process. He then paid process for the examination of 3 witnesses only i. e. Chief Architect of the Government of M. P. , B. M. Thakre, Reader, and S. K. Khariya, Lecturer in Engineering College, Raipur. At that stage, S. L. Rathi objected to the participation of his landlord, respondent No. 4, in the proceeding. The objection was overruled. The prayer for appointment of the local commissioner was also rejected. Chief Architect of the Government of M. P. deputed k. M. Bangde, an Architect in his office, to inspect the cinema building and give his opinion as he was not in a position to come himself. Bangade inspected the cinema building on 27-5-1983 in the presence of the parties and submitted his report on 18-5-83 pointing out various defects in the building and that it is in a dangerous condition and it has to be rebuilt. S. L. Rathi also examined Thakre and S. K. Khariya, Reader and Lecturer, both of whom deposed regarding the condition of the balcony. They admitted that there were cracks but according to them the defects can be rectified. After recording of the evidence, S. L. Rathi raised objection regarding the report and evidence of Bangade and requested that Thakre and Khariya be re-examined to give their opinion about the building also and the Chief Architect should himself be examined and also the Chief architect of the Government of India. The application was rejected. The district Magistrate cancelled the licence and rejected the application for renewal on 6-7-1983. An appeal was preferred before the State Government which has also been dismissed on 2-12-1983, hence this petition. ( 4. The application was rejected. The district Magistrate cancelled the licence and rejected the application for renewal on 6-7-1983. An appeal was preferred before the State Government which has also been dismissed on 2-12-1983, hence this petition. ( 4. ) THE petitioner contends (i) that the licensing authority and the appellate authority have not complied with the direction of this Court in m. P. No. 903 /82 by not affording opportunity to the licensee to prove his case; (ii) there is violation of principles of natural justice by not giving full opportunity to the licensee to show that the building is in a good condition; (iii) the respondent No. 4 is a highly influential person and he tried to persuade the District Magistrate in cancelling the licence and refusing renewal; (iv) the respondent No 4 filed civil suit for eviction in 1976 on the ground of bona fide need but the suit was got dismissed after S. L. Rathi enhanced the rent. Again a fresh suit was filed for eviction in 1981 but in that suit also there was no mention about the dangerous condition of the building but by subsequent amendment an additional prayer was made for reconstruction on this ground. In the earlier reports of the Deputy Collector, Additional Collector and the Executive Engineer, there is no mention about the dangerous condition of the building but all of a sudden in 1981 the story of the building being in a dilapidated condition has been introduced so as to get the licence rejected and help the respondent No. 4 in getting vacant possession of the building. The licence has been cancelled and renewal refused on extraneous considerations inasmuch as the licensing authority has taken into consideration the matters which are to be considered at the time of granting a fresh licence and not for renewal of a licence. The respondents 1 to 3 and the respondent No. 4 in their separate returns have supported the orders of the licensing authority and the appellate authority saying that all reasonable opportunity was given to the licensee to prove his case. In fact, S. L. Rathi has exploited the indulgence that was shown to him at the cost of public safety, which is a prime consideration for granting or renewing a licence. The licensing authority has absolute discretion in cancelling the licence if there is danger to public safety. In fact, S. L. Rathi has exploited the indulgence that was shown to him at the cost of public safety, which is a prime consideration for granting or renewing a licence. The licensing authority has absolute discretion in cancelling the licence if there is danger to public safety. The licensees own witnesses have shown that the building is in a dangerous and dilapidated condition and the defects cannot be rectified and the only alternative is to reconstruct the building. No repairs have been carried out in the building since 1959 after conversion of the godown into a cinema hall. The enquiry for granting a cinema licence or for its renewal cannot be endless one by permitting the licensee to go on examining witnesses till some one comes forward and gives evidence in his favour. All reasonable opportunity was given to the licensee and he himself examined 3 witnesses. After finding that their evidence has gone against him, he went on filing one application after another by abusing the process and for prolonging the proceeding. Besides, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition as rule 120 says that the licence granted under these rules shall not be transferable but shall be personal for the benefit of the person only to whom it is granted and on the death of the licensee, it shall be deemed to be revoked. ( 5. ) AFTER having heard the counsel for the parties at length we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this petition. We are satisfied that all reasonable opportunity was given to the licensee in support of his case to show that the building is in a good condition for running a cinema theatre. It may not be necessary here to describe the various reports submitted from time to time by the Deputy Collector, Additional Collector, Executive engineer and the inspection report of the District Magistrate himself but it would suffice if we refer to the evidence of the licensees own witnesses. K. M. Bangade, who is an Architect in the office of the Chief Architect of the government of M. P. , inspected the building on 27-5-1983 in the presence of the parties and submitted his report to the licensing authority on 28-5-1983. Thereafter he was examined as a witness by S. L. Rathi. K. M. Bangade, who is an Architect in the office of the Chief Architect of the government of M. P. , inspected the building on 27-5-1983 in the presence of the parties and submitted his report to the licensing authority on 28-5-1983. Thereafter he was examined as a witness by S. L. Rathi. He is an independent person and his statement finds corroboration from the earlier reports of the Deputy Collector, the Additional Collector, Executive engineer and the District Magistrate himself. They are also independent persons and there is no reason why they would go out of the way and give false reports in order to help the respondent No. 4. We must say after going through the record that the District Magistrate acted impartially and gave sufficient indulgence to the licensee who tried to abuse the process and in his impugned order has exhaustively discussed the evidence on record before reaching his conclusion. May be that he was under order of transfer before he passed the final order but as he had already heard the matter at length, it was just and proper that he should have disposed of the application for renewal before leaving the place. This does not show any interestedness in the matter but he acted entirely in public interest. According to Bangade, there are cracks in the floor of the balcony which is giving way and some makeshift arrangement has been made to give support to the balcony by constructing two walls and a pillar but they are not sufficient to prevent the balcony from collapsing. There are vertical cracks through and through on the main walls of the building. Because of the construction of two walls and the pillar, there is practically no ventilation on the ladies seats and there is no proper exit for them. In case of some mishap, there is every likelihood of the ladies being trapped inside. Tin sheets on the roof are rotted and are giving way. There is no septic tank and consequently there is open drainage. The staircase has not been properly constructed and the furnitures are in a bad state. The other two witnesses b. M. Thakre and S. K. Khariya have deposed only about the balcony as they were told by the licensee to give their opinion about it only. There is no septic tank and consequently there is open drainage. The staircase has not been properly constructed and the furnitures are in a bad state. The other two witnesses b. M. Thakre and S. K. Khariya have deposed only about the balcony as they were told by the licensee to give their opinion about it only. Though they have found cracks in the balcony and also in the walls but according to them the cracks can be repaired and there would be no danger of the balcony falling but they admitted that they were not given the structure-design and drawing They had made calculations on the basis that there are only 95 seats on the balcony while, in fact, the sitting capacity is 180 which means that they were not told the actual position. According to them, if the load is increased on the balcony, it may give way, and the two overhead tanks are kept empty because any further leakage would further endanger the building, but this is not correct because the municipal supply of water is not continuous and there is scarcity of water supply in Durg town and the licensee himself has mentioned that water is stored in the water tanks. These two witnesses have not examined the main walls of the cinema building and so they are not in a position to give any opinion about the present condition of the building. Under section 5 of the Act the licensing Authority shall not grant a licence unless it is satisfied that the rules made under the Act have been substantially complied with and 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 exhibitions therein. Under Rule 102, the licensing authority has been given absolute discretion in refusing a cinema licence if it is likely to cause obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger or damage to residents, or passers-by in the vicinity of the cinema. In view of the dangerous condition of the building, it is unsafe both to the persons attending exhibition there and also to the outside public as the cinema building is in a busy locality. So the safety of the public at large is the primary consideration for granting or refusing to grant a licence. In view of the dangerous condition of the building, it is unsafe both to the persons attending exhibition there and also to the outside public as the cinema building is in a busy locality. So the safety of the public at large is the primary consideration for granting or refusing to grant a licence. Under Rule 105, an application for renewal has to be made in the manner laid down in rule 100, but it shall not be necessary to attach to the application for renewal no objection certificate of the landlord unless specially required by the licensing authority. If the District Magistrate had insisted for a no objection certificate from the landlord, the licensee was bound to obtain one for getting the renewal. The licensee is also required to obtain a certificate from a qualified engineer and counter-signed by the Executive Engineer about the condition of the building, but here the Executive Engineer on the contrary recommended pulling down of the building as it is in a dangerous condition. Therefore, the District Magistrate has not given its finding on any extraneous considerations. ( 6. ) RULE 120 is as follows: "a licence granted under these rules shall not be transferable but shall be personal for the benefit only of the persons to whom it is granted and on the death of the licensee, shall be deemed to be revoked. " This means that on the death of the licensee, the licence comes to an end and his legal representatives have to obtain a fresh licence for running a cinema. For this purpose Rule 103 has been enacted which is as under: - "if the licensee dies or becomes mentally incapable or otherwise disabled the person carrying on the business shall not be liable to any penalty for carrying on the business during such reasonable time as may be necessary to admit of his making an application for the renewal of the licence. " This rule provides that during the interim period on the death of the licensee or his being incapacitated, the business may go on for such reasonable time as may be necessary for making the application for renewal in case the licensee is incapacitated or to apply for a fresh licence by his legal representative in case the licensee is dead but the rule mentioned only of application for renewal of the licence and not of fresh licence. A licensee may die during subsistence of his licence and so there cannot be any question of applying for renewal. It is not happily worded. It, in fact, provides that if the licensee becomes incapacitated, he is exempted from making an application for renewal within the prescribed time but he or his representative has to apply for renewal within a reasonable time, but in case of the death of the licensee, his legal representatives have to apply for a fresh licence and they are not liable for any penalty if they carry on business in the meanwhile before making necessary application within reasonable time. Under the circumstances, the petitioner could not have been substituted in place of the licensee. His only remedy was to apply for a fresh licence. Therefore, the appeal had, in fact, abated and the order of the District Magistrate has become final. ( 7. ) WITH the result, the petition fails and it is dismissed with costs. Each set of respondents would get counsels fee Rs. 100 on being certified. The outstanding security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.