MURLIDHER RAO, J. ,, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER, a cinema exhibitor in hoskote, has challenged the touring cinema licence granted to respondent-2 for three months viz, from 4-11-1987 to 3-2-1988; respondent-2 had obtained a licence earlier vide Annexure 'a' from 1-8-1987 to 30-10-1987; there is gap of four days in between the two licence. Facts being not in dispute, two contentions are urged by Mr. Goulay, learned counsel for petitioner. Firstly, there is no provision to grant a second licence for a touring talkies in same place, secondly, the distance between the petitioner's cinema and second respondent's cinema is within 800 metres, therefore it is violative of rule 100 of Karnataka Cinema (Regulation) Amendment Rules, 1987. Mr. B. G. Sridharan appearing for the 2nd respondent contended both the reasons are unsustainable. Regarding the first contention he maintained that there is no prohibition to grant the second licence. He submitted that while there is no provision to renew the licence, there is no impediment in granting the second licence particularly when it is not a continuation of the old one and there is an interval of four days. According to him, each licence is an independent one and is permissible under the rules. So far as the second contention is concerned, he submitted that this objection having not been taken for the first licence, the same is waived ; since it requires a factual investigation, such objection cannot be entertained. According to him the distance between the two cinemas is more than 800 metres. ( 2 ) MR. P. R. Ramesh, HCGP urged the legal aspect of the matter and prayed for dismissal of writ petition. To appreciate the legal objection, it becomes essential to refer to the provisions of the Act and rules. Entry 33 of list II in VII Schedule enables the State Legislature to enact laws for theatres, dramatic performances; cinemas, sports, entertainments and announcements. The Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964, has been in force since 15th March 1971. Section 19 is a rule making power. Clause (c) of Sec. 19 reads thus :" (C) the limitation of the period for which licences in respect of any place may be granted for touring cinemas, and prescribing the distance from a permanent cinema beyond which licences in respect of any place for touring cinemas may be granted. Section 19 is a rule making power. Clause (c) of Sec. 19 reads thus :" (C) the limitation of the period for which licences in respect of any place may be granted for touring cinemas, and prescribing the distance from a permanent cinema beyond which licences in respect of any place for touring cinemas may be granted. " ( 3 ) SINCE in this petition, I am concerned with touring cinema, it is not necessary to refer to other clauses. Chapter XII of these rules deals with touring cinemas. The old rules were substituted by new rules which came into force on 25-2-1987. The draft rules were published in the gazette on 31-7-1986 For comparison, the words 'touring cinema' are defined thus :"old Rules 'touring cinema' means,- (i) an outfit comprising the cinema apparatus and plant and the accessories taken from place to place in the State of Karnataka for giving cinema exhibitions ; or (ii) an outfit comprising cinema apparatus and plant taken from place to place in the State of Karnataka for conducting shows in any local theatre or hall". New Rules"88 (B) 'touring cinema" means an outfit comprising the cinema apparatus with accessories taken from place to place for exhibition of cinematograph films or shows at any one place for a period not exceeding three months". Under the old rules for touring cinema the applicant was required to obtain 'noc', which is dispensed with under the new rules. The duration of licence under the old rules was one year, with a gap of one month, it could be regranted for one more year. Under the new rules, the duration is three months and there is no provision fof renewal. On the other hand, rule 105 requires the licence-holder to convert the same into semi-permanent theatre. ( 4 ) THE intention of ihe substituted rule is to keep them travelling from place to place, in other woids, it should be 'touring' in true sense and not a camouflage. Equipped with a portable apparatus and accessories, it should move from place to place and not settle down in any one place. The tendency, in the past, to stay in one place from year to year virtually, enabling them to become a permanent theatre was sought to be put an end to by the amended rules. Equipped with a portable apparatus and accessories, it should move from place to place and not settle down in any one place. The tendency, in the past, to stay in one place from year to year virtually, enabling them to become a permanent theatre was sought to be put an end to by the amended rules. It was submitted by the Government Pleader that the inherent intention was to compel the exhibitors to go to remote villages, so as to enable the remote villagers or tribal masses to have the benefit of the exhibition. Being an effective media having mass appeal, it was submitted it could serve as a means to educate the villagers and rural masses. The object being laudable and un-impeachable, whether it is achieved?. Is there a possibility of repeating the old practice ?. To examine this aspect, the provisions of the amended rules need a dissection. ( 5 ) IN the preamble of the Act and in the body of the provisions of Act and Rules, the word 'place' has been employed in several places. Section 2 (4) defines place thus:" (4) "place" includes a house, building, tent, enclosure, and any description of transport, whether by water, land or air". Being an inclusive definition, it is extensive, it expands or extends the meaning of the word defined to include within it what would otherwise not have been comprehended in it. The ordinary meaning of the word 'place', in its context, would mean a town, village, street, a dwelling house, locality etc. In the definition clause of the touring cinema, as extracted above, while the words "taken from place to place" may mean from one area to another area or from one village to another village, or from one town or city to another town or city or from one suburb to another suburb, the words "at anyone place" in the context of the activity will have to be understood as the particular site, premises, building or enclosure where the touring cinema was exhibiting the films. This narrow interpretation, as suggested by Mr. M. R. Achar, Government Advocate, has to be accepted, because wider connotation would lead to anamoly. To say that in one village, town or city, the exhibitor can be licenced for three months only would mean that the exhibitor would be prohibited or debarred to come to that place for ever. This narrow interpretation, as suggested by Mr. M. R. Achar, Government Advocate, has to be accepted, because wider connotation would lead to anamoly. To say that in one village, town or city, the exhibitor can be licenced for three months only would mean that the exhibitor would be prohibited or debarred to come to that place for ever. In the absence of the words "at a time" it would only mean three months once and for all, for each of the exhibitors. One exhibitor may be succeeded by another exhibitor or exhibitors, but a point may reach when all the exhibitors, having enjoyed the licence for three months, would be prohibited. After all, the trade is limited to few and no one ventures without profit. The proprietor and his staff would have settle down in one place where they maintain their family. This embargo to exhibit the cinema only once, for three months, in one village, town or city and thereafter abandon the place for ever will be unreasonable and irrational. It does not cease to be a 'touring cinema' if the exhibitor repeats his visit after visiting two or three towns or cities. To illustrate if the exhibitor runs the cinema for three months in 'a' village, thereafter pitches his tent at 'b' village for three months, at 'c' village for another three months; if he comes to 'a' again and applies for licence, it would be unreasonable to say that he had exhibited for three months earlier hence not entitled to licence. Fact remains that he had not changed his character as "touring cinema". If the intention was otherwise, it should have been provided three months, at a time, subject to fresh grant only after nine months or one year, as is intended ; and instead of the word 'place' to employ the expression village, as defined in Land revenue Act or a specified area. it is in this context that Mr. Sridharan relied on the decision in A. Shelvarajen v. The State of Mysore (1963 (1) Mys. L. J. 28 ). in that case the Court was examining the provisions of Hyderabad Cinema regulation, 1952. The expression "travelling cinematographic show" was defined thus : "travelling Cinematograph Show" shall mean an outfit comprising of cinematograph apparatus and plant taken from place to place in the State for giving cinematograph exhibitions". L. J. 28 ). in that case the Court was examining the provisions of Hyderabad Cinema regulation, 1952. The expression "travelling cinematographic show" was defined thus : "travelling Cinematograph Show" shall mean an outfit comprising of cinematograph apparatus and plant taken from place to place in the State for giving cinematograph exhibitions". The word "building" after its amendment on 19-11-1960, was defined thus :''a building constructed of inflammable materials may be licensed for any period not exceeding four months and a licence granted in respect of any such building shall not be renewed again within the same year for the same place. ""explanation- -For purposes of this rule 'place' means an area within a radius of five miles from the building at which a Travelling Cinematograph show is exhibited''. A page 40, the learned Judges, demonstrating the absurdity of the rule, observed thus :"what the rule, therefore, forbids is that the same person should not exhibit his shows in the same place more than once in the same year. If that is what the lule provides, nothing prevents, after a person has once exhibited his shows in that way, another person from making an application under the Act for the grant of a licence to him for the exhibition of his shows in a non permanent building, and if a licenhas to be granted to him if he complies with all the statutory requirements and he exhibits his shows during the maximum period of four months for which such licence can be granted, he becomes ineligible for renewal of that licence or for another licence And during the remaining four months another man may come and apply for a licence to exhibit his shows in a non-permanent building made of inflammable materials and if his application is according to law the licensing authority cannot but grant him the licence. ( 6 ) THE result therefore, would be that, during all the twelve mhnths of the year the members of the public would be attending the cinematograph exhibitions in a non-permanent building although it is constructed with inflammable materials. The only advantage which is secured by the impugned rule is that such exhibition is not made permissible by one and the same person but becomes permissible throughout the year, provided the exhibitors are different persons. The only advantage which is secured by the impugned rule is that such exhibition is not made permissible by one and the same person but becomes permissible throughout the year, provided the exhibitors are different persons. ( 7 ) EVEN if it is possible to suggest that a building constiucted with inflammable materials is so dangerous to the members of the public that no exhibitor should be permitted to exhibit his shows in such building, it is clear that the impugned rule does not at all protect the members of the public against such dangers. The only danger against which the members of the public are protected is the danger of an inflammable building catching fire beyond the period of four months for which licence is granted to a particular person during a year. The impugned rule does not eliminate altogether the danger from inflammable buildings. What it does is to perpetuate the danger, if any, merely changing the source of that danger every four months. It further makes it only possible for the licensing authority to distribute the licences during a particular year between a least three persons, and, that, is the only effect of the impugned rule. The consequences of such distribution would be that three different persons, could, throughout the ' year carry of their exhibitions in an inflammable building which the same person is not entitled to do. A rule resulting in such consequences can hardly be described as one made for the purpose of ensuring public safety. ( 8 ) IN my opinion, rule 67 of the Hyderabad Cinematograph Rules, 1953, as it now stands after it replaced the old rule on November 19, 1960 was clearly beyond the competence of the rule making authority and is therefore ultra vires and unenforceable. The result of the conclusion reached by me is that it was not open to the licensing authority in this case to refuse, to consider the application of the petitioner for the renewal of the licence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Therefore what is deducible from the above logic is that the word 'place' occuring in the latter part of the definition cannot be understood as village, town or city but must be understood in its narrow sense, that is to say, the actual building, land, spot, premises, location where the cinema was exhibited for three months. in S. R. Salimath v. D. M. Bijapur, (1965 (1) Mys. L. J 337, the Court was required to examine the Bombay Cinema rules. Rule 106 dealt with duration. It reads thus :"a permanent cinema may be licensed for any period not exceeding one year and a quasi permanent cinema or a touring cinema may be licensed for any period not exceeding four months". (emphasis supplied) the licensing authority was of the opinion that it is inadvisable to renew the licence. The Court observed thus :". . . . THE distinctions recognised by law, between a permanent cinema and a touring cinema are just those set out in the 'act' and the Rules. The licensing authority cannot add to the same. As mentioned earlier, no provision, either in the 'act' or in the rules, was brought to our notice which prohibits an operator from operating his touring cinema in a particular place beyond a given period Therefore, we do not think that the licensing authority was competent to refuse the renewal asked for on the ground that the operators were operating their touring cinemas in the places mentioned above for about a year or more". (emphasis added) ( 9 ) IN the Hyderabad Rules, the period of four months was fixed only with reference to buildings, which definition included the tent, constructed of inflammable material. The duration was relatable to the nature of building i. e. use of inflammable building. In the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, building is defined thus, in rule 88 (a) :" (A) "building" includes any booth, tent or similar structure used for exhibition of cinematographic films or shows". In the Bombay Rules, the licence for permanen't cinema could not exceed one year and the licence for quasi-permanent or touring cinema could not exceed four months. In the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, building is defined thus, in rule 88 (a) :" (A) "building" includes any booth, tent or similar structure used for exhibition of cinematographic films or shows". In the Bombay Rules, the licence for permanen't cinema could not exceed one year and the licence for quasi-permanent or touring cinema could not exceed four months. It had no reference either to place of exhibition or the building. In karnataka Rules, under Rule 90 (9) a licence is valid for three months ; as per the definition clause, the exhibition of shows is limited to three months "at any one place". Since touring cinema cannot exhibit films or shows exceeding three months at any one place, three is a clear prohibition to grant licence, beyond three months. In W. P. . 11562/1987, decided on 17th and 18th September 1987 (M/s. Srinivas chitra Mandira v. The Government of katnataka), it was held "that under the 1987 rules, a touring cinema cannot continue at any one place for a period more than three months" ; further it was observed that the object of the 1987 rules is "to limit the operation of the touring cinema for a period of three/months only at any one place". ( 10 ) THE question as to the meaning or connotation of the words "at any one place" did not fall for consideration. The result of the above analysis is- 1) touring cinema can exhibit films or shows at any one place only for three months and not in excess thereof; 2) the word "place" with reference to licence means building, site, premises, location or spot where the exhibition of films or shows is conducted. Therefore the licence granted to 2nd respondent at the same place i. e. site No. 1285/966/896, regarding which he had licence as per Annexure 'a' cannot be sustained ; hence it is quashed. in the course of arguments, it was pointed out that Form 'g' is mentioned in rule 89 (1) and rule 90 (6 ). The Form as prescribed is a form of licence. it cannot be used for making an application for licence. . The learned Government Advocate had to admit this anamoly Therefore there is no prescribed form for making an application for grant of licence. Till a valid Form is prescribed, clause (b) of rule 90 (1) cannot be given effect to. The Form as prescribed is a form of licence. it cannot be used for making an application for licence. . The learned Government Advocate had to admit this anamoly Therefore there is no prescribed form for making an application for grant of licence. Till a valid Form is prescribed, clause (b) of rule 90 (1) cannot be given effect to. After prescribing the Form, this portion of rule has to be appropriately amended. The second ground urged by Mr. Goulay is disputed by Mr. Sridharan. There is no material to pronounce on this aspect. In view of my above conclusion, it is not necessary to go into that question. For the aforesaid reasons this petition succeeds. I make the following order : - w. P. . is allowed. The licence dated 3-11-1987, from 4-11-1987 to 3-2-1988 in site No. 1285/966/896, is quashed. No costs. --- *** --- .