SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) THESE petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even though the petitioners are different, as common questions of law and fact arise for consideration in these petitions, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) IN W. P. No. 7763/1987, the a petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 18-5-1987 passed by the District Magistrate, chitradurga in No. ENT. CR. 199/85-86 produced as Annexure-C informing the petitioner that on 25-2-1987 the Karnataka cinema (Regulation) (Amendment) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 1987 rules') have come into force, therefore, the touring cinema licence can be granted only for a period of three months as per sub-rule (9) of Rule 90 of the 1987 Rules. The petitioner has also been further informed that if the petitioner wants to convert the touring cinema into a semi-permanent cinema, he can make an application in form-AA as per sub-rule (1) of Rule 105 of the 1987 Rules. The petitioner is further informed that he has filed an application in form-AA for conversion of his touring cinema into a semi-permanent cinema under sub-rule (1) of Rule 105 of the 1987 Rules, but that rule does not apply to him as it applies only to those who had obtained a licence on 25-2-1987 for a touring cinema, therefore, his application for conversion is rejected. The petitioner has also sought for a direction in the nature of mandamus to the licensing authority to consider his application for conversion of his touring N. O. C. into semi-permanent cinema N. O. C. and further to direct the licensing authority to continue the touring cinema licence as per sub-rule (6) of Rule 105 of the 1987 Rules for a period of one year from 12-3-1987. ( 3 ) IN W. P. NO 12272/1987, the petitioner has sought for quashing the endorsement dated 16/29-6-1987 bearing No. MAG (2) TT 128/85- 86 issued by the 1st respondent produced as Annexure-C informing the petitioner that his request for issue of a No objection Certificate for conversion of his touring cinema into a semi- permanent cinema has been rejected as the application has been filed beyond time. ( 4 ) THE facts in W. P. No. 7763/1987 are as follows: the petitioner was granted the No objection Certificate on 12-1- 1987 for a touring cinema in respect of the site measuring 40'x80' (13. 20 x 23. 70 Sq. Mtrs) situated in Horakeredevarapura village of holalkere Taluk. He made an application for grant of licence after the construction of the building. The building was inspected by the Fire Officer on 19-2-1987. It was thereafter the application for grant of a touring cinema licence was filed by the petitioner. The licence for the touring cinema was granted on 28-2-1987, subsequent to the coming into force of the 1987 rules. On 7-5-1987, he filed an application in Form-AA for conversion of the touring cinema into a semi-permanent cinema. That application has been rejected by the impugned endorsement Annexure-C. ( 5 ) THE facts in W. P. No. 12272/1987 are as follows : the petitioner held a touring cinema licence on 25-2-1987. However, he has filed the application only on 26-5-1987 for conversion of his touring cinema into a semipermanent cinema. That application has been rejected on the ground that it is filed beyond the period of three months. ( 6 ) HAVING regard to the contentions raised by the petitioners, the following points arise for consideration: 1) Whether the 1987 Rules were published in the official Gazette dated 25-2-1987? 2) Whether the petitioner in W. P. No. 7763/87 is entitled to have the No objection Certificate for touring cinema converted into a No Objection certificate for semi-permanent cinema? 3) Whether the petitioner in W. P. No. 7763/87 is entitled to have the touring cinema licence granted to him on 28-2-1987 continued for a period of one year? 4. Whether the petitioner in w. P. No. 12272/87 is entitled to have his application filed in Form-AA considered on merits and in accordance with law? point NO. 1: ( 7 ) THE contention of the petitioners is that the Karnataka Gazette (Extra-ordinary) dated 25-2-1987 was not in fact printed and published on that day, but it was actually printed on 8-3- 1987 and published on 12-3-1987. Therefore, the 1987 Rules must be held to have come into force only on 12-3-1987 and not on 25- 2-1987. 1: ( 7 ) THE contention of the petitioners is that the Karnataka Gazette (Extra-ordinary) dated 25-2-1987 was not in fact printed and published on that day, but it was actually printed on 8-3- 1987 and published on 12-3-1987. Therefore, the 1987 Rules must be held to have come into force only on 12-3-1987 and not on 25- 2-1987. ( 8 ) FOR proper appreciation of this contention, we must bear in mind the legal position as to presumption of the genuineness of everything that is printed in the official Gazette. Section 81 of the evidence Act specifically provides that the court shall presume the genuineness of every document purporting to be the London gazette or any official Gazette or the government Gazette. No doubt the presumption is rebuttable; but to start with the court must presume the genuineness of the Gazette. It is enough if the Court has the gazette before it. In addition to it, it is also open to the Court to presume that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed (Illustration (e) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act ). A Gazette copy of the notification dated 25-2-1987 published in the official Gazette of 25-2-1987 is produced. It shows that it was printed and published on 25-2- 1987. Though the presumption under section 114 of the Evidence Act is optional, but in a case where the official Gazette produced before the court bears the day wednesday and the date 25-2-1987 as the day and date of the publication of the gazette, the presumption arises and the court can presume that it is regularly published on the date on which it is purported to have been done. Great public policy lies behind these presumptions. They are intended to ensure smooth functioning of the public authorities in doing the acts in the bona fide exercise of their power. In the absence of such presumptions, it becomes almost impossible for the proper and efficient functioning of the State and its authorities and officers. It is this presumption which the court has to bear in mind while appreciating the contentions of the petitioners. It is this presumption which the petitioners have to displace. ( 9 ) THE learned High Court Government pleader has filed the affidavit of the Director of the Government Press denying the fact that the Karnataka Gazette Extra-Ordinary in question was actually printed on 8-3-1987. It is this presumption which the petitioners have to displace. ( 9 ) THE learned High Court Government pleader has filed the affidavit of the Director of the Government Press denying the fact that the Karnataka Gazette Extra-Ordinary in question was actually printed on 8-3-1987. He has specifically stated that 8- 3-1987 being a Sunday, the Government Press did not work, that the Notification bearing No. HD 367 CNA 85 dated 25-2-1987 was printed on 8-3-1987 is factually incorrect and false. He has also further stated that as the petitioner has not disclosed the source of his information, he is not entitled to have the question investigated. He has also further undertaken to produce the relevant records if directed by this Court. ( 10 ) IN W. P. No. 7763/87, the petitioner has stated thus:"the said amendment rules are brought by a Notification dated 25- 2-1987 and according to rule 1 (2) of the amendment rules, the amendment rules shall come into force on the date of their publication in the official Gazette. The said rules were published in the official Gazette extraordinary dated 12-3-1987 and as such as the amendment rules came into force with effect from 12-3-1987"thus in the petition the petitioner did not make any averment as to when actually the gazette was printed. Subsequently he filed an application I. A. No. 1 seeking amending of the petition and also I. A. II to implead the compiler, Karnataka Gazette and also the state of Karnataka. Both the applications were allowed by the order dated 9-6-1987. , ( 11 ) IN the application I. A. I the petitioner has averred thus:"after making enquires in the office, petitioner came to know that the rules were actually printed on 8-3-1987 in the karnataka Government Press and thereafter the same was published in the gazette Extraordinary on 12-3-1987. "it was further averred:"that it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner reliably learnt from the office of the Karnataka Government Press that the rules known as the Karnataka (Cinema (Regulation) (Amendment) rules, 1987 issued by the Government of karnataka, Home Secretariat, by its notification bearing No. HD 367 CNA 85, bangalore, dated 25th February 1987 were actually printed in the Karnataka government Press on 8-3-1987 and that the said rules were published in the gazette Extraordinary dated 12-3-1987. If that is so, the date of publication of the said rules in the said Gazette mentioned as Wednesday the 25th February 1987 is incorrect and false. When the said rules were actually printed in the Karnataka government Press on 8-3-1987, the publication could be only either on 8-3-1987 or any subsequent date and it cannot be prior to 8-3-1987. The publication was actually made in the Karnataka Gazette extraordinary on 12-3-1987. Therefore, under these circumstances, the date of publication of the rules referred to above has been ante dated as 25-2-1987 in the column prescribed for mentioning the date of publication of the official Gazette. In view of the above fact, the rules would come into force only with effect from 12-3-1987 the date on which the rules were published in the Gazette as per sub-rule (2) of rule 1 of the Karnataka cinemas (Regulation) (amendment) rules, 1987. This fact may kindly be get verified by summoning the concerned papers from the Karnataka Government press, if need be. "again in para 5 it has been stated that: "the rules having not been actually printed on 25-2-1987, could not have been published on 25-2-1987 at all. As already stated, the rules have been actually printed on 8-3-1987 and the same was published on 12-3-1987. " subsequent to the filing of the affidavit by the Deputy Director of Karnataka Government press, the petitioner has filed another application LA. III seeking further amendment to the petition stating that by mistake it was stated in I. A. I that the rules were actually printed on 8-3-1987 instead of stating 7-3-1987. I. A. No. III was filed in the light of the order passed on 25-9-1987 directing the petitioner to disclose the source of information for making the allegations as per the petition averments. In I. A. III, the petitioner has stated in para 2 thus: "that before filing the writ petition it was disclosed that the Gazette Notification pertaining to Amendment Rules of 1987 varied from one another. Being doubtful, he was advised to get the matter verified in the Government Press where the Rules of 1987 were printed and published. So, petitioner went to the Government Press and made enquiries with the concerned officials. Then he came to know that the amendment rules were printed on 7-3-1987 and not earlier and the same was published in the Gazette dated 12-3-1987. So, petitioner went to the Government Press and made enquiries with the concerned officials. Then he came to know that the amendment rules were printed on 7-3-1987 and not earlier and the same was published in the Gazette dated 12-3-1987. Petitioner is not in a position to state the names of the officials who gave the above information as he does not know their names. Secondly it is respectfully submitted that the Amendment Rules 1987 appears to have been composed and printed twice as there is difference in the wording in Rule 105 (1) of the amendment rules between the Gazette Notification which bear the same date. In the above circumstances, there is a serious doubt as to when both the Gazettes were composed and printed in the Government Press. Further the petitioner was also given to understand that the Amendment Rules of 1987 were not available for sale in the sales section of Government Press from 25-2-1987 to 11-3-1987 and the same was available on and after 12- 3-1987 only. The enquiry made by the petitioner in the office of Government press, just before filing the writ petition disclosed that the amendment Rules of 1987 were published in the Gazette dated 12-3-1987 and not earlier. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that all the relevant records may kindly be called for in the interest of justice. The application seeking amendment to correct the date 8-3-1987 to 7-3-1987 is heard along with the main petition. ( 12 ) AS far as the petitioner in W. P. No. 12272/1987 is concerned, he has averred that the amendment rules were printed and published on 12-3-1987 and not on 25-2-1987 as stated in the Gazette notification. He has also further averred in para 7 of his petition thus:"in this connection it may be stated that although the notification No. HD 367 CNA 85 is dated 25-2-1987, the said notification was not published in the Karnataka official Gazette as printed in the Gazette. The Notification was actually printed in the Government Press on 7-3-1987 and the publication was actually made on 12-3-87 in the Karnataka Official Gazette extra-ordinary. On making enquiries in the Government Press, petitioner learnt that the amendment rules were not even composed and printed as on 25-2-1987. The same were actually composed and printed on 7-3-1987 and published on 12-3-1987. The Notification was actually printed in the Government Press on 7-3-1987 and the publication was actually made on 12-3-87 in the Karnataka Official Gazette extra-ordinary. On making enquiries in the Government Press, petitioner learnt that the amendment rules were not even composed and printed as on 25-2-1987. The same were actually composed and printed on 7-3-1987 and published on 12-3-1987. As a matter of fact, one more gazette publication was there on 5-3- 1987 and even on that day the rules were not published because they were not yet printed by then. In the circumstances, the date viz. , 25-2-1987 printed in the official gazette as having been published on that day is not the correct date and the correct date of publication is 12-3-1987. " ( 13 ) ON these averments, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been able to displace the presumption available in favour of the genuineness cf the contents of the Gazette and the regularity of performance of the official acts in the manner they are purported to have been done. ( 14 ) THESE averments are devoid of necessary particulars. They do not contain anything more than an assertion that the extra- ordinary Gazette dated 25-2-1987 was not printed and published on 25-2-1987 and it was printed on 7-3-87 and published on 12-3-1987. There are no particulars mentioned therein as to when and from whom and where and in what manner the information was gathered by the petitioners. In other words the basis for the charge that the extra-ordinary Gazette was not printed and published on 112-2-1987 and it was printed on 7-3-87 and published on 12-3-85 is not found in the averments made by the petitioners. The allegations of mala fides must be such as to enable the court to enquire into them and call upon the other side to meet them. The assertion of the petitioners that they came to know from the concerned official of the Government Press that the rules in question were printed on 7-3-1987 and not on 25-2-1987 does not lead to an enquiry, in as much as it does not contain material particulars so as to enable the court to make further enquiry. It was incumbent upon the petitioners to disclose the names of the officials from whom they obtained the information as to actual date of printing of the Gazette in question. It was incumbent upon the petitioners to disclose the names of the officials from whom they obtained the information as to actual date of printing of the Gazette in question. The date, time and place and manner of receipt of information ought to have been disclosed. In the absence of material particulars and in the presence of the presumption as to the genuineness of the contents of the Gazette and the regularity of its publication being available in favour of the State, it is not possible to hold that the petitioners have placed material which is sufficient to call upon the other side to produce the records to prove as to when the Gazette was actually printed and published. ( 15 ) THE learned cousel for the petitioner has tried to support the contention by showing the contents of Part IV of the gazette dated 12-3-1987 containing the notification dated 25-2-1987 relating to 1987 rules and contended that it must be held to have been published only on 12-3-1987 and not on 25-2-1987. Part IV Gazette of 12-3-1987 is a weekly Gazette. Extraordinary gazettes are printed and published as and when they are necessary. Each extra-ordinary Gazette is a complete gazette by itself. The fact that extraordinary Gazettes are included in the weekly gazette, it does not mean that even the extra-ordinary Gazettes are printed and published on the date the weekly Gazette is printed and published. Therefore, it is not possible to hold on the basis of this fact that the presumption is rebutted. Very cogent averments containing the necessary particulars must be made to enable the court to call upon the other side to meet the same. It is not that the petitioners are actually required to prove that the Gazette was printed on the date on which they claim, it was printed, but it is necessary to produce prima facie material before the court or make an averment containing all the necessary material particulars to enable the court to call upon the other side to prove that the Gazette was published on the date it is purported to have been published. Hence i am of the view that the petitioners have failed to discharge their burden. Hence i am of the view that the petitioners have failed to discharge their burden. Therefore, it is not necessary to call upon the respondents to produce the records to show that the Gazette was actually printed and published on 25-2-1987 when there is no reason to doubt the same. The learned Government Pleader has placed reliance on a decision of this court in b. NAGAPPA v UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE (1974 (1) Kar. LJ. 49. ). That was a case in which the petitioner there in placed reliance on a certain document which he could not have come into possession legally in the normal course. Therefore, he was asked to explain as to how he was above to come in possession of the said document. He failed to explain the means by which he came in possession of the said document. Therefore, it was held that the court would be justified in declining to exercise jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution in favour of such petitioner on the ground that he had not approached the court with clean hands. It is not possible to hold that the case is on the point. All that it can be said in the instant case, as already pointed out, that the petitioners have failed to prima facie show that the Karnataka Gazette Extra-ordinary dated 25-2-1987 bearing No. KRKBg. GPO-25 Serial No. 173 publishing the 1987 rules was not printed and published on 25-2-1987. Accordingly, point No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and against the petitioners. ( 16 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petition in W. P. No. 7763/1987 held a No Objection Certificate on 25-2-1987. As per the decision of this court in W. P. No. 11562/1987 dated 18-9-1987 (M/s. Srinivasa Chitra Mandira v Government of Karnataka and others),even a person holding a No Objection Certificate on the date 1987 Rules came into force, would be entitled to have the No Objection Certificate of a touring cinema converted into a No objection Certificate for a semi-permanent cinema, provided he has made an application in Form-AA within a period of 3 months from the date of coming into force of 1987 rules. In the instant case, the petitioner has filed an application in Form-AA on 7-5-1987, within the period of three months from the date 1987 Rules came into force. In the instant case, the petitioner has filed an application in Form-AA on 7-5-1987, within the period of three months from the date 1987 Rules came into force. Therefore, irrespective of the fact that he held no touring cinema licence as on the date 1987 Rules came into force i. e. , on 25-2-1987, as he held the No Objection Certificate on that day, he is entitled to have the same converted into No Objection Certificate for a semi-permanent cinema. Point No. 2 is accordingly answered in the affirmative. ( 17 ) THE only basis on which the petitioner claims that the touring cinema licence granted to him on 28-2-1987 should be continued for a period of one year as per sub-rule (6) of Rule 105 of the 1987 Rules is that the 1987 Rules came into force on 12-3-1987 and not on 25-2-1987, therefore, as he held a touring cinema licence on 28-2-1987 and has made an application in form- AA on 7-5-1987, he is entitled to the benefit of sub-rule (6) of Rule 105 of the 1987 Rules. On the first point, it has been held that the 1987 Rules were published on 25-2-1987. Accordingly they came into force on 25-2-1987. That being so, the very foundation of the contention is taken away. As the touring cinema licence is granted under the 1987 Rules and as there is no scope for claiming that the licence must be continued for a period of one year in view of the provisions contained in sub-rule (9) of rule 90 of the 1987 Rules and the definition of the expression 'touring cinema' it is not possible to hold that the petitioner in w. P. NO. 7763/87 who has been granted the touring cinema licence on 28-2-1987 is entitled to continue beyond the period of three months. Accordingly point No. 3 is answered in the negative and against the petitioner in W. P. No. 7763/87. ( 18 ) THE contention of the petitioner in w. P. No. 12272/87 is also based upon the ground that the 1987 Rules came into force on 12-3-1987. This contention of the petitioner has been negatived while considering point No. 1. Accordingly point No. 3 is answered in the negative and against the petitioner in W. P. No. 7763/87. ( 18 ) THE contention of the petitioner in w. P. No. 12272/87 is also based upon the ground that the 1987 Rules came into force on 12-3-1987. This contention of the petitioner has been negatived while considering point No. 1. Therefore, the 1987 rules having come into force on 25-2-1987, the petitioner ought to have filed the application in Form-AA within a period of three months from 25-2-1987 i. e. , the date on which 1983 Rules came into force. Unfortunately, the petitioner has filed the application in Form- AA only on 26-5-1987. There is no provision in the 1987 Rules or in the 1971 Rules enabling the licensing authority to condone the delay in filing the application. ( 19 ) NO doubt, it is a hard case in as much as there is a delay of only one day in filing the application in Form-AA. The petitioner has averred that he has constructed the touring cinema building which fully satisfies the requirements of semi-permanent cinema. Further he held a touring cinema licence on 25-2-1987. Under these circumstances, it is a fit case for the state Government to exercise its power under Section 20 of the Act and exempt the touring theatre in question from sub-rule (1) of Rule 105 of the 1987 Rules in so -far it prescribes the period of three months for making an application in form-AA. If the theatre of the petitioner is exempted from the operation of the aforesaid provision contained in sub-rule (1) of Rule 105 of the Rules, the petitioner will be entitled to invoke the provisions of sub-rule (6) of Rule 105 of the 1987 Rules because he held a touring cinema licence on the date 1987 Rules came into force, and he will also be entitled to have his application filed in Form-AA considered on merits and in accordance with law. Point No. 4 is answered accordingly. ( 20 ) FOR the reasons stated above, these writ petitic. . are disposed of in the following terms. 1) 1987 Rules were published on 25-2-1987 and as such came into force on 25-2-1987. Point No. 4 is answered accordingly. ( 20 ) FOR the reasons stated above, these writ petitic. . are disposed of in the following terms. 1) 1987 Rules were published on 25-2-1987 and as such came into force on 25-2-1987. 2) The petitioner is W. P. No. 7763/1987 is entitled to have the No Objection certificate of a touring cinema converted into No Objection Certificate for semi-permanent cinema irrespective of the fact that he held no touring cinema licence on 25-2-1987 and he is entitled to the benefits of sub-rules (1) to (5) of Rule 105 of 1987 Rules and not sub-rule (6) as he held no touring cinema licence on the date 1987 Rules came into force. 3) The District Magistrate, Chitradurga is directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner in W. P. No. 7763/1987 in Form-AA for conversion of his touring cinema into semipermanent cinema on the basis that he is entitled to the benefit of sub- rules (1) to (5) of Rule 105 of the 1987 rules. 4) It is open to the petitioner in W. P. No. 12272/1987 to make an application requesting the State Government to exempt his touring theatre in question from sub-rule (1) of Rule 105 of the 1987 Rules in so far it prescribes the period of three months for making an application in Form-AA in exercise of their power under Section 20 of the karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964. If such a request is made by the petitioner, the State Government shall consider the same in the light of the observations made in this order. In the event the State Government exempts the theatre of the petitioner in W. P. No. 12272/1987, as stated above, the petitioner shall be entitled to (a) have his application Form-AA considered on merits and in accordance with law, and (b)operate the touring cinema as per sub-rule (6) of rule 105 of the 1987 Rules for a period of one year from the date of coming into force of 1987 Rules, or till the disposal of the application filed by him in Form-AA whichever is earlier. ( 21 ) SRI Ramesh, learned High Court government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of Appearance is six weeks. --- *** --- .