Judgment ASHWINI KUMAR SINHA, J. 1. By this writ application the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari and have prayed for quashing Annexures-2 and 3 of this writ application. 2. By Annexure-2 (dt. 13-9-85) the State of Bihar (Respondent 1) in reply to a letter dt. 2-5-85, sent by the Licensing Authority (the District Magistrate)(Respondent 2) approved the construction of a permanent Cinema Hall named as "Gupta Mini Cinema" at Aurangabad. By Annexure-3 (dt. 12-10-85) the Licensing Authority (the District Magistrate) (Respondent 2), with the prior approval of the State of Bihar (Respondent 1), vide Annexure-2, permitted Sri Laxami Prasad (Respondent 3) to construct a permanent Cinema building known as "Gupta Mini Theatres." 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned Annexure-3 was in violation of R.4(a)(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Bihar Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), as amended by Cl.(d) of the Notification No. 739 dt. 30-5-1978. The other limb of the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the State of Bihar (Respondent 1) could not usurp the statutory duties of the Licensing Authority (the District Magistrate) (Respondent 2) and grant permission for construction of the Cinema building and hence Annexure-2 needed to be quashed. 4. By way of elucidating the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that under R.4, as amended by the Notification dt. 30-5-78 referred to above no permission could be given for construction of Cinema House within 75 metres of (i) School etc. recognised by the Government and (ii) Hospitals with 50 or more beds and, in the instant case, the Sadar Hospital of Aurangabad with more than 50 beds being situate just by the other side of the road where the proposed Cinema House was to be constructed and Madarasa Islamia, a recognised School, being also within 75 meters of the place proposed for construction of the Cinema House in question; no permission could be granted for the construction of the Cinema House in question and, in that view of the matter, the impugned annexures were violative of R.4 as amended by the Notification No. 739 dt. 30-5-78. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondent 3 (the persons in whose favour permission for construction of the permanent building has been granted) has submitted that under the proviso tosub-cl. 30-5-78. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondent 3 (the persons in whose favour permission for construction of the permanent building has been granted) has submitted that under the proviso tosub-cl. (b) R.4, the Licensing Authority, for sufficient reasons and with prior approval of the State Government, could relax the rule or any part thereof and in the instant case, the Licensing Authority (the District Magistrate-Respondent 1) before granting permission for the construction of the Cinema building in question, had already taken prior approval of the State of Bihar (Respondent 1) and did relax the rule in the instant case; more so, when the T.B. Ward of Sadar Hospital, Aurangabad, had only six beds. And, in that view of the matter, there was no illegality or infirmity in the impugned annexures and they were quite valid in law. 6. In order to appreciate the aforesaid submission, advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, even before I state a few facts, it is relevant to quote the provisions of law. Rule 4 of the Bihar Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1974, framed under S.9 of the Bihar Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1954 , runs as follows :- "4. Restriction in regard to the locations of Cinema - (a) No permanent or temporary Cinema House shall be allowed to be constructed within 200 yards of :- (i) a place of worship; (ii) a recognised Secondary School or college or any residential institution attached thereto :- (iii) any other recognised educational institution attached thereto; (iv) a public hospital or a hospital with an indoor patient ward; (v) an orphanage containing one hundred or more inmates; (vi) any other place declared unsuitable by the State Government for this purpose. (b) No permanent or temporary Cinema house shall be allowed to be constructed on the site which may upset the Master plan or in any thickly populated area which is either exclusively residential or a restricted area or used generally for residential purposes as distinguished from business purpose : Provided that the Licensing Authority may for sufficient reasons and with the prior approval of the State Government, relax this rule or any part thereof in any case and specially in the case of Cinema houses already completed or nearing completion with the approval of the authorities empowered in this behalf or the State Government prior to the commencement of these rules." By Notification No. 739, dt. 30-5-78, the Governor of Bihar made amendments in the Bihar Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1974 , by virtue of power conferred under S.9 of the Bihar Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1954 and after Cl.(d) certain general conditions were also added and under the general conditions (as many as 12), condition No. 3, was put as follows :- "No permission would be given for construction of cinema houses within 75 metres of the following places :- (a) Approved or old place of worship. (b) School etc. recognised by the Government. (c) Hospital with 50 or more beds. Cinema houses up to a total capacity of 250 seats can however be built within 75 meters." 7 At this stage, it would be pertinent to state that the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the power to relax R.4 under the proviso to R.4(b) was not applicable in the present case as, in the present case, the construction of the Cinema house in question was within 75 meters of the Madarsa Islamia and also because the Sadar Hospital, Aurangabad, with more than 50 beds, was situate just by the other side of the road where the proposed Cinema house was to be constructed and thus the general condition No. 3 under Notification No. 739 dt. 30-5-78 was applicable in the present case which was without any proviso like the provision to R.4(b), in other words, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners the present case on facts, was covered. under general condition No. 3 vide Notification dt. 30-5-78 and the Licensing Authority (the District Magistrate Respondent 2) had no power to relax this general condition No. 3. 8. under general condition No. 3 vide Notification dt. 30-5-78 and the Licensing Authority (the District Magistrate Respondent 2) had no power to relax this general condition No. 3. 8. In order to appreciate the submissions and the counter submissions, as already referred to above, a few facts need to be stated. Petitioner No. 1 is running a Cinema business in the name of "Narendra Talkies" at Aurangabad and petitioner 2 is a resident of Aurangabad and his residential house is by the side of the land proposed for the construction of the Cinema house in question, Gupta Mini Theatres. Respondent No. 3 filed an application before respondent 2 (the District Magistrate/Licensing Authority) and prayed for being allowed to construct a Cinema House under the name of M/s. Gupta Mini Theatres at Aurangabad with a sitting capacity of 500 seats This application of respondent 3 was considered by the sub-committee in the meeting dt. 2-4-85 and a recommendation was made by the sub-committee to the State Government (respondent 1) to relax the rule for granting the permission to respondent 3. Petitioner 1 himself running a Cinema business at the same place filed objection. The State of Bihar (respondent 1) granted approval to the recommendation and thereafter the Licensing Authority District Magistrate (respondent 2) granted permission to respondent 3 for construction of the Cinema building in question. The case of the petitioners was that the Sadar Hospital of Aurangabad was situated just contiguous to the plot on which the proposed building was to be constructed and intervened only by a municipal road. Further case of the petitioner was that the Madras Islamia, a recognised School, was also within 75 meters of the place proposed for construction of the Cinema house in question. 9. The State of Bihar (respondent 1) has filed a counter-affidavit. In para 5 of the counter-affidavit it has been state that the Council of Ministers at the meeting held on 9-9-80 decided to adopt a liberal policy towards the construction of a cinema house. Accordingly, any difficulty arising in the way of opening a new Cinema house, the restrictions laid down in the rule was to be relaxed. Besides that it has further been stated that some instructions have also been issued by the Government from time to time so that maximum Cinema houses could be constructed in this State, as in other States. Accordingly, any difficulty arising in the way of opening a new Cinema house, the restrictions laid down in the rule was to be relaxed. Besides that it has further been stated that some instructions have also been issued by the Government from time to time so that maximum Cinema houses could be constructed in this State, as in other States. It has further been stated on behalf of the State of Bihar (respondent 1) that the objection filed by the petitioners was fully considered at the Cinema Advisory Committee. It has further been stated that permission for constructing the Cinema house in question was granted by the Licensing Authority District Magistrate (respondent 2) after relaxing the rule with prior approval of the State of Bihar (respondent 1). More so, the relaxation of the rule in favour of respondent 3 in this case was in the light of the decision taken by the Council of the Ministers. The learned counsel appearing for the State of Bihar submitted that by Annexure-2 (one of the impugned Annexures) the State of Bihar accorded prior approval before the permission for the construction of the Cinema building in question was granted by the Licensing Authority (respondent 2) and it was obvious on a mere perusal of Annexure-2. The learned counsel for the State of Bihar (respondent 1) further submitted that the State Government, by its two circulars dt. 12th Nov., 1980 and 2nd May, 1981 (Annexures-C and D respectively) had directed all the District Magistrate to be liberal in granting the Cinema licence to the owners and drew my attention to Cl.(4) of the Circular dt. 2nd May, 1981 (Annexure-D) which runs as follows :- SARKAR NE IS VYAVSAY KO VYAPAK BANANE KE LIYE CINEMA GRIHON KI ANUGYAPTI KI SWIKRITI MEN UDARTA BARATNE KA NIRNAY LIYA HAI AUR ASPASTHA NIRDESH DIYA HAI KI NIRDHARIT PLANNING STANDARD TATHA SUNISCHIT NIYAMON KO VI AVASHIYA-KT ANUSAR SITHIL KARTE HUYE CINEMA ANUGAPTI KI SWIKIRITI PRADAN KI JAYE. It would be pertinent to refer to Annexure-C dt. 12th Nov., 1980 also and the relevant extract of the same is as follows :- Seva Men Sabhi Ziladhikari Patna Dinank 12 November, 1980 Vishya :- Yojna Awadhi 1980-85 Ke Liye Atirikta Sadhan Jutane Ka Prastav Cinema Ghar Kholne Ke Liye Udarta Purvak Licence Diya Jane Ke Sambandh Men. It would be pertinent to refer to Annexure-C dt. 12th Nov., 1980 also and the relevant extract of the same is as follows :- Seva Men Sabhi Ziladhikari Patna Dinank 12 November, 1980 Vishya :- Yojna Awadhi 1980-85 Ke Liye Atirikta Sadhan Jutane Ka Prastav Cinema Ghar Kholne Ke Liye Udarta Purvak Licence Diya Jane Ke Sambandh Men. Mahodaya, Dinesanusar Sarkari Patra Sanikhya 5660 Di 28-10-80 Ke Kram Men Mujhe Yah Suchit Karna Hai Ki Sarkar Ne Yah Nirnaya Liya Hai Ki Naye Cinema Ghar Kholne Ke Liye Udar Purvak Licence Diya Jaye. Iske Liye Yojna Awadhi 1980-85 Ke Liye Yojna Badha Karya Karama Kiya Jaye Jisse Austan Bis Hazar Ki Abadi Par Ek Cinema Gharchalu Ho Sake. Is Prakar Ka Nirman is Agyan Ke Sath Liya Gaya Hai Ki Aisa Hone Se Manoranjan Kar Ke Rup Men Aya Me Kafi Bridhi Hone Ka Anuman Hai. Atah Apse Anurodh Hai Ki Upar Ankit Nirnaya Ke Anusar Ek Karya Krama Taiyar Kiya Jaye Aur Uske Karyanuat Ke San Darva Men Naye Cinema Griha Kholne Ke Liye Avedan Bhejne Ki Kripa Karen. Kripaya Ise Ati Avashyak Samajhen. Vishwan Bhajan Ha. Kirti Narain Ke Sanyukta Sachiv. 10. It would be very pertinent to mention that the State of Bihar, in its counter-affidavit (in para 9) categorically stated that T.B. Ward of the Sadar Hospital consisting of only six beds is located within 75 meters of the Cinema building and hence the Cinema building could be constructed within 75 meters where a Hospital had less than 50 beds. 11. ************** 12. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent 2 (the District Magistrate/Licensing Authority) also. Here also it has been categorically stated that, the objection petition filed by the petitioners as fully considered at the Cinema Advisory Committee meeting held on 2-4-1985. It has further been stated that though the T.B. Ward of the Aurangabad Hospital was located within 75 meters of the proposed Cinema building, this fact was considered at the Cinema Advisory Committee meeting and only thereafter the recommendation was sent to the State of Bihar on 2-5-85. The proceeding of the Cinema Advisory Committee meeting has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Bihar and similarly, the recommendation sent to the State of Bihar has been marked as Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit. The approval granted by the State of Bihar dt. The proceeding of the Cinema Advisory Committee meeting has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Bihar and similarly, the recommendation sent to the State of Bihar has been marked as Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit. The approval granted by the State of Bihar dt. 13th Sept., 1985 has been marked Annexure-C to the counter-affidavit filed by the State of Bihar. 13. In order to appreciate the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it would be most pertinent to give the relevant extracts of the aforesaid Annexures-A, B and C. Relevant Extract from Annexure-A "Is T.B. Ward Se Mukhya Aspatal Tatha Purush Ward 125 Feet Duri Par Paschim Ki Or Hai Evam Us Purush Ward Ke Bad Hi Aspatal Ke Aur Ward Isthit Hai. Prastavit Cinema Bhawan Ke Nirman Asthal Se Aspatal Ke T. B. Ward Ki Duri 75 Metare Hanin Hoti Hai, Pranitu Iske Sabhi Pahaluon Of Civil Surgeon Tatha Anya Sadasyon Ke Sath Vichar Vimarsha Ke Dauran Is Niskarsha Par Pahuncha Gaya Ki Chunki T. B. Ward Ke 15 Feet Bad Aspatal Ki Chahar Diwari Hai ? Uske Bad 35 Feet Chauri Sarkak Hai Uske Bad 60 Feet Lamba Cinema Pradarshan Asthal Par Jane Ke Get Ke Andar Fataknuma Rasta Hai Tatha Jab Andar Men Cinema Ka Pradarshan Hoga To Uska Koi Bhi Prabhao Bahar Men Parne Ki Sambhawan Nahi Jan Parti Hai. xx xx xx Cenema Bhawan Ka Nirman Ka Nirnaya Lete Huye Prastav Parit Karti Hai Ki Is Sambandh Me Abilamb Sarkar Ki Anusansa Bheji Jaye Ki Sarkar 75 Metre Ke Bhitar Aspatal Ka Ek Chhota Sa Ang T. B. Ward Hai Iske Karan Utranna Pratibandh Ki Shithil Karte Huye Nikat Bhavishya Men Ukta Asthal Par Ek Naye Asthayee Cinema Bhawan Ke Nirman Hetu Sarkar Swikriti Hai. Relevant extract from Annexure-B "Atah Sarkari Nideshon Ke Alok Men Is Zile Ki Awadi Ke Anusar Cinema Grihon Ki Sankhya Me Bridhi Karne Ke Nimit Tatha Uprryukti Cinema Salahkar Samittee Ki Baithak Men Liye Gaye Nirnayanusar Parit Prasatao Ke Anurup Lagaye Gaye Sharto Ke Sath Ki Laudspeaker Par Gane Adi Bahar Jane Ke Udeshya Se Na Bajaye Jayen. Aurangabad Men Avedak Dwara Prastavit Asthal Par "Gupta Mini Theater" Ke Nam Se Ek Naya Asthayee Cinema Bhawan Ka Nirman Karane Ke Liye Avedak Shri Lakshmi Prasad Ki Anugyan Pradan Karne Hetu Anushansa Ki Jati Hai. Aurangabad Men Avedak Dwara Prastavit Asthal Par "Gupta Mini Theater" Ke Nam Se Ek Naya Asthayee Cinema Bhawan Ka Nirman Karane Ke Liye Avedak Shri Lakshmi Prasad Ki Anugyan Pradan Karne Hetu Anushansa Ki Jati Hai. Is Swikirti Men 75 Metre Ke Bhitar Aspatal Ka Ek Chhota Ang T. B. Ward Rahne Ke Karan Is Had Tak Sarkari Anudesh Ks Shithilikaran Nihit Hoga, Jiski Bhi Anusansa Ki Jati Hai." Relevant extract from Annexure-C Vishaya :- Shri Lakshmi Prasad Dwara Aurangabad Men "Gupta Mini Theater" Namak Ek Asthayee Cinema Griha Ka Nirman. Mahasya, Nidesanusar Uparyukta Vishyak Apke Patrank Kusa Dinank 2 May, 1985 Ke Prasang Men Mujhe Kahana Hai Ki Bihar Cinema (Viniyaman) Niyamawali 1974 Ke Niyam 6 Ke Antargat Rajya Sarkar Shri Lakshami Prasad Ko Aurangabad Nagarpalika Ke Antragat Ward No. 13 Holding No. 335 Thana No. 560 Tauzi No. 4858, Khata No. 133 Plot No. 361 Evam 372 Par "Gupta Mini Theater" Ke Nam Se Ek Asthayee Cinema Griah Ki Nirman Ki Anumati Pradan Karti Hai. Vishwas Bhajan Ha. Lalan Prasad Sarkar Ke Vishesh Sachiv. 14. Respondent 3 has also filed a counteraffidavit and in para 8 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that T.B. Ward of Aurangabad Sadar Hospital has only 6 beds and that Madras Islamia School was not situated near the Cinema Hall. In this counteraffidavit it has also been asserted that the recommendation by the District Magistrate was only after the recommendation of the District Cinema Advisory Committee by its order dt. 11-4-85. It has further been stated that the Cinema Advisory Committee carefully considered the objections filed by the writ petitioners and also considered the inspection report of the Circle Officer and other relevant materials and only thereafter rejected the writ petitioners objections and recommended to the District Magistrate for grant of permission. It has further been stated that the Sadar Hospital was at a distance of more than 75 meters from the proposed Cinema site which was apparent from the report submitted by Mr. K.L. Deo Assistant Town Planner (Architect), Government of Bihar, who had held local inquiry into the proposed site and submitted report in favour of respondent 3. It was further stated in the counter-affidavit that the T.B. Ward of the Hospital was an independent unit with beds only and that, too, situate at a distance of more than 139 Ft. K.L. Deo Assistant Town Planner (Architect), Government of Bihar, who had held local inquiry into the proposed site and submitted report in favour of respondent 3. It was further stated in the counter-affidavit that the T.B. Ward of the Hospital was an independent unit with beds only and that, too, situate at a distance of more than 139 Ft. It was further stated in the counter-affidavit that writ petitioner 1 had a vested interest in preventing the construction of the new Cinema house in the town inasmuch as he wanted to protect his monopoly in the Cinema business in the town. 15. In the background of the averments made in the counter-affidavit of the State of Bihar (respondent 1) (who has supported the case of respondent 3) more in the light of what has been said in Annexures-A, B and C to the counter-affidavit filed by the State of Bihar - let the law be examined, submitted by the learned counsel for the parties. 16. Let me first consider whether the proviso to R.4(b) of the Rules (as already quoted in the earlier paragraph of the judgement) is applicable in the facts of the present case or, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, on the facts of the present case, the Licensing Authority could not take recourse to the proviso to R.4(b) for relaxing the rule. We are not concerned with Cl.(c) of R.4 in the instant case. Then R.4 has two clauses, Cl.(a) an Cl.(b). The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the proviso relates only to Cl.(b); in other words, it does not apply at all to Cl.(a) again in other words there is a complete bar for the grant of permission for construction either of permanent or temporary Cinema house within 200 yards of Cls.(i) to (vi) and in those clauses there is no provision of relaxation of the rule. The second limb of the argument is that under Cl.(d) of the Notification No. 739 dt. The second limb of the argument is that under Cl.(d) of the Notification No. 739 dt. 30-5-78 when the rule has been amended and general conditions, too, have been added, no provision or relaxation of the condition No. 3 has been made and if the case fell within condition 3 of he aforesaid Notification, the Licensing Authority had no jurisdiction to relax that condition and, in that view of the matter, the proviso to R.4(b) was not applicable in the present case. 17. There is no force in the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Proviso to R.4(b) has been quoted in earlier paragraph of the judgement. The proviso comes only after Cls.(a) and (b). If the proviso related only to Cl.(b) in that case instead of using the word "relax this rule" or any part thereof "in the proviso" - some other appropriate words could have been used to restrict the proviso to Cl.(b) alone. The words "this rule" and "or any part thereof" could not have been used. The very fact that the words "this rule" and "or any part thereof" have been used in the proviso, to R.4 and as the proviso stands only after Cls.(a) and (b) in my opinion, this proviso applies to Cls.(a) and (b) both and not to Cl.(b) alone, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Then looking to the Notification No. 739, dt. 3o-5-78, there is no reference of the amendment of R.4. By the notification what has been done is that the planning standard for the construction of permanent Cinema house in rural areas, in towns with maximum population of fifty thousand, in towns having a population from fifty thousand to two lacs and in towns with the population of mere than two lacs has been laid down and having laid down as such, the Notification also adds general condition to be applicable in the matter or permission for construction of Cinema houses in towns. Thus, it cannot be said that the power to relax the rule has been taken away by the Notification No. 739, dt. 30-5-78. The power to relax the rule remains in the proviso to R.4(b). Hence, I hold that be it a case under general condition No. 3 (vide Notification No. 739, dt. Thus, it cannot be said that the power to relax the rule has been taken away by the Notification No. 739, dt. 30-5-78. The power to relax the rule remains in the proviso to R.4(b). Hence, I hold that be it a case under general condition No. 3 (vide Notification No. 739, dt. 30-5-78) or be it a case under R.4(a) or (b) the proviso is always there; in other words the power to relax the rule on the part of the Licensing Authority is always there but for sufficient reasons and with the prior approval of the state Government. Thus, I hold that there is no merit in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 18. Let me now consider the other submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. As already stated above, the main thrust of the argument was that as the Madras Islamia School was within 75 meters of the proposed place for the construction of the Cinema house in question and as the Sadar Hospital, Aurangabad, too, was situate just contiguous to the plot on which the proposed building was to be constructed it was hit by the general condition No. 3 of the Notification No. 739, dt. 35-5-78 and, therefore, the Licensing Authority/District. Magistrate (respondent 2) acted without jurisdiction in granting permission for construction of the Cinema building in question. There is no force in this submission also advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. I have already held above that the power to relax the rules is always there with the Licensing Authority/District Magistrate (respondent 2). In the instant case, the State of Bihar (respondent 1) has supported the case of respondent 3 having filed a regular counter-affidavit. There is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the averments made in the affidavit filed by the State of Bihar. I have already quoted the relevant extracts of the two Circulars dt. 12-11-80 and 2-5-81 (Annexures-C and D, respectively) by which the State Government directed all the District Magistrates to be liberal in granting the Cinema Licence to the owners. 19. I have already quoted the relevant extracts of the two Circulars dt. 12-11-80 and 2-5-81 (Annexures-C and D, respectively) by which the State Government directed all the District Magistrates to be liberal in granting the Cinema Licence to the owners. 19. I have already stated above that the District Magistrate Licensing Authority (respondent 2) has also supported the case of respondent 3 by filing a regular counteraffidavit in which the copy of the proceeding of Cinema Advisory Committee meeting held on 2-4-85 has been annexed as Annexure-A. In this counter-affidavit by respondent 2 (the District Magistrate/Licensing Authority) the recommendation of the licensing authority has also been annexed as Annexure-B. Then the approval of the State of Bihar, before the impugned order Annexure-3 was passed, has been annexed as Annexure-C and the relevant extracts of these annexures have already been quoted in the earlier part of the judgement. A perusal of Annexures-A, B and C to the counter-affidavit filed by respondent 2 read in the light of Annexures-C and D to the counter-affidavit filed by the State of Bihar (respondent 1) (the relevant extracts of which have already been quoted earlier) - it is more than obvious that the District Magistrate/Licensing Authority took the prior approval of the State Government (respondent 1) and relaxed the rule in the instant case and granted permission for construction of the Cinema house in question. 20. It is true that in the impugned Annexure i.e., Annexure-3 as it stands, no sufficient reason is given and it is also true that in the counter-affidavit it has not been categorically stated that R.4 has been relaxed, yet looking at the annexure appended to the counter-affidavits filed by the State of Bihar (respondent 1) and the District Magistrate/Licensing Authority (respondent 2), it seems clear that the Licensing Authority/District Magistrate (respondent 2), in the instant case on its own facts, has relaxed the rule and even though in the impugned order (Annexure 3) no sufficient. reason has been given yet in the light of material placed on the record (Annexures-A, B and C of the counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent 2 and Annexures-C and D to the counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 1 already referred to above) it must be held that there has been sufficient compliance of the proviso to R.4(b) and it must be held that R.4 has been substantially complied with in the present case. 21. Thus, the second limb of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, as referred to above, also fails. 22. In the result, this application is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. (lines have been underlined by me for emphasis) S.S.SANDHANWALIA, J. 23 I agree.