Judgment :- 1. Petitioner was the Proprietor of the Central Theatre in Palghat. It was a temporary cinema as under the Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1958, the Act for short. The theatre was however, set on fire by one Raveendran on 8-5-1985 and it was completely burned down. A sessions case is pending against Raveendran. The petitioner had applied to the second respondent the Commissioner of the Palghat Municipality for permission to put up a permanent theatre in the site where the temporary cinema was situated. That was in the year 1979 as evident from Ext. P2. The permission was granted and enured till 24-10-1984. Subsequently and on application made by the petitioner, the permission was extended by government till 24-10-1986. The permission is not in force thereafter. 2. Petitioner has started the construction of the theatre and according to him be has spent about Rs. 10 lakhs so far. In the year 1986 when the permission aforesaid was expiring one Balan Vydian and one Ullasan filed a writ petition O.P. No. 7901/86 in this court to restrain the renewal of the licence. Balan Vydian is a tenant occupying a room on the northern side of the site, where the theatre is being put up. A commission was issued by this court and the Commissioner reported on 12-11-1985 the stage at which the construction was, at that time. The petitioners in that original petition had applied for temporary injunction restraining the extension of the period of the permission for construction beyond 24-10-1986. An interim order of injunction as prayed for was passed on 23-10-1986. But it was vacated by the order Ext. P1 dated 17-11-1986. By the said order this court left it to government to take appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with law. 3. Meanwhile and on 15-10-1986 the petitioner had applied to government for extension of the period of the permission by one more year from 24-10-1986. The extension was sought under R.13 of the Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, (the Rules) framed under S.13 of the Act. The petitioner claimed that the major part of the work was already over and extension of time was required only to complete the "finishing works". Government rejected the application by their proceedings Ext. P2 dated 3-4-1987. The extension was sought under R.13 of the Kerala Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, (the Rules) framed under S.13 of the Act. The petitioner claimed that the major part of the work was already over and extension of time was required only to complete the "finishing works". Government rejected the application by their proceedings Ext. P2 dated 3-4-1987. Government took the view that under R.13, permission for construction of a permanent building was valid only for one year, but that it may be renewed for successive periods for sufficient reasons, for a maximum period of five years. That period was over Government had no power thereafter to grant any extension, and therefore, it was not possible to grant the petitioner's request for extension of the period of permission. 4. Petitioner had contended before government that they had, under S.14 of the Act, and R.79 of the Rules, the power to exempt any cinematograph exhibition from all or any of the provisions contained in the Act or in the Rules, and that he may be granted the benefit of exemption from the purview of R.13. Government considered the matter and held that these provisions could not apply or be invoked, in the case of permission for construction of a theatre. The petitioner's prayer for exemption was therefore, rejected. 5. The petitioner has filed a petition Ext. P3 before government for review of this order pointing out that government had, "in a similar and identical case" granted extension applying "the provision of R.13 and 79". Ext. P3 is not yet disposed of. It is still pending. 6. Petitioner has filed this original petition challenging Ext. P2. Direction to government to consider the review petition Ext. P3 is also sought. 7. It is not in dispute that petitioner is not entitled to get any further extension of the permission under R.13. His case is rested only on the government's power of exemption under S.14 of the Act and R.79 of the Rules and their alleged illegal abnegation of the power. 8. The question for consideration is therefore, whether government has got the power to grant exemption in relation to the construction of a theatre from all or any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules. 9. 8. The question for consideration is therefore, whether government has got the power to grant exemption in relation to the construction of a theatre from all or any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules. 9. S.3 of the Act enacts that no person shall give an exhibition by means of a cinematograph elsewhere than in a place licensed under the Act, of otherwise than incompliance with any conditions and restrictions imposed by such licence. Cinematograph is defined in S.2 (I) as including any apparatus for the representation of moving pictures or series of pictures. 10. S. S prescribes the various factors which the licensing authority has to bear in mind in granting a licence. S.6 is the provision relating to permit for construction and reconstruction of buildings for cinematograph exhibitions. Inter alia it is provided that any person who intends to use any site for constructing a building thereon for the exhibition of cinematograph films shall make an application in writing to the licensing authority for permission therefor in the manner prescribed, that is prescribed by the Rules. 11. S.7 and 8 enable government and the licensing authority to issue directions from time to time to the licensee. S.13 enables government to make rules to carry out the purpose of the Act. In particular sub clauses (d) to (i) of sub-section (2) deal with various matters arising out of an application for permission under S.6. S.14 on which reliance is placed by counsel for the petitioner enables government to exempt any cinematograph exhibition of the nature mentioned as also any place where such a cinematograph exhibition is given from any of the provisions of the Act or rules made thereunder. It reads as follows: 14. Power to exempt. The government or any officer authorised in this behalf may. by order in writing, exempt, subject to such conditions and restrictions as they may impose (i) any cinematograph exhibition to which public are not admitted or to which public are admitted without payment; or (ii) any cinematograph exhibition provided for purposes which are educational, cultural or scientific, by any institution, society, committee or other organisation not conducted or established for profit; or (iii) any place where a cinematograph exhibition referred to in clause (i) or (ii) is given. from any of the provisions of this Act or of any rules made thereunder" 12. from any of the provisions of this Act or of any rules made thereunder" 12. Part II of the Rules deals with licences to be issued under the Act. R.8 prescribes the mode of application for permission under S.6. R.9 to 12 lay down the manner in which the licensing authority is to deal with such an application. R.13 provides that a permission granted by the licensing authority pursuant to such an application shall be valid for one year in respect of a permanent building and may be renewed for successive periods for sufficient reasons for a maximum period of five years. 13. The petitioner has already availed of the maximum period of five years in respect of the theatre being put up by him. 14. Parts III to VI of the Rules deal with various other matters and Part VII contains special provisions in the case of certain cinematograph exhibitions. Such exhibitions are those enumerated in R.76 for which special provisions are made in R.77 and 78. R.79 is the one on which considerable reliance has been placed by counsel for the petitioner. It provides that government may by order in writing exempt any cinematograph exhibitions or class of cinematograph exhibitions from all or any of the provisions of the rules contained in any of the parts of the rules. I shall extract this rule: 79. The State Government may by order, in writing exempt, subject to such conditions and restrictions as they may impose, any cinematograph exhibitions or class of cinematograph exhibitions from all or any of the provisions of the rules contained in any of the parts of these rules." As pointed out earlier, the petitioner has already exhausted the period of five years upto which the permission granted under S.6 can be extended. R.13 is imperative in its terms that the permission can be extended only for a maximum period of five years and that too for sufficient reasons. There is no provision for an extension beyond this period of five years. The petitioner is not entitled to any extension as claimed by him unless he is exempted from the operation of R.13 under any available provision of law. 15. Petitioner's submission is that S.14 and R.79 enable government to grant exemption to birr from the operation of R.13. Government did not accept this contention by the order Ext. P2. The petitioner is not entitled to any extension as claimed by him unless he is exempted from the operation of R.13 under any available provision of law. 15. Petitioner's submission is that S.14 and R.79 enable government to grant exemption to birr from the operation of R.13. Government did not accept this contention by the order Ext. P2. I shall examine whether the petitioner's contention is sustainable. 16. S.14 has been quoted earlier. Thereunder government's power of exemption is only in regard to cinematograph exhibitions to which public are not admitted, or to which public are admitted without payment, or those provided for purposes which are educational, cultural or scientific by any institution, society, committee or other organisation not conducted or established for profit, and places where such cinematograph exhibitions are given. The power to exempt is thus limited to a specified class of cinematograph exhibitions and places where such cinematograph exhibitions are given. It cannot be extended to any other. The power of exemption has to be limited strictly to the confines of the statute. Unless the petitioner can bring his case within the enumerated categories, be cannot complain if government denied themselves a power which was not vested in them. The petitioner's claim for exemption is in relation to a place where a cinematograph exhibition is proposed to be given. The cinematograph exhibition which be proposes to give is not of the nature specified in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of S.14. Since the place to which exemption can be granted is related to a cinematograph exhibition of the nature referred to in sub-clauses (i) and (ii), and since the petitioner's case does not fall within those categories, the petitioner cannot avail of S.14 to make a claim for exemption. 17. The next question is whether R.79 can be invoked. The rule enables exemption of any cinematograph exhibitioner class of cinematograph exhibitions. It is not in relation to any place where cinematograph exhibitions are given. But counsel for the petitioner contends that "cinematograph exhibition" also takes in the place where the exhibition takes place. In other words when R.79 envisages exemption to cinematograph exhibitions, it should be deemed to include exemption for the places where the cinematograph exhibitions are to be given. 18. The Act or the Rules do not however sustain the petitioner's contention. But counsel for the petitioner contends that "cinematograph exhibition" also takes in the place where the exhibition takes place. In other words when R.79 envisages exemption to cinematograph exhibitions, it should be deemed to include exemption for the places where the cinematograph exhibitions are to be given. 18. The Act or the Rules do not however sustain the petitioner's contention. They make a clear distinction between cinematograph exhibitions and the place where such exhibitions are to be given. The definition of "cinematograph" itself is inclusive only of the apparatus for the representation of moving pictures. S.3 which requires a licence for exhibition of cinematograph, treats the place of exhibition as different from the cinematograph exhibition itself. This distinction underlies the various provisions of the Act as also the Rules. S.6 in particular treats the exhibition as distinct from the place. A perusal of the various provisions of the Act and the Rules makes it clear that cinematograph exhibition is throughout treated as distinct and different from the place where such exhibition is given-vide S.3, 6, 7, 8 and 14. R.3 (b), (f), (h), 76, 77 and 78, among others. What R.79 contemplates is exemption only in regard to cinematograph exhibitions and not to places where such exhibitions take place. In other words, government may, under R.79, grant exemption in relation to particular type or class of films, but not in relation to the places, where such exhibitions take place. The only power of exemption, so far as the place is concerned is under S.14, which does not however, avail the petitioner. 19. The view taken by the government in Ext. P2 is that their power does not extend to granting exemption regarding permission for construction of cinema theatres. They have noted the distinction between cinematograph exhibitions and places where such exhibitions are given. Government's view is warranted by the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Neither S.14 nor R.79 can be availed of by the petitioner to get an extension of the period of permission. Ext. P2 is therefore, an order validly passed.] 20. Ext. P3 is a petition for review. Petitioner has not pointed out to me any provision in the Act under which government has the power to review its orders. I do not therefore, find my way to direct the government to dispose of Ext. Ext. P2 is therefore, an order validly passed.] 20. Ext. P3 is a petition for review. Petitioner has not pointed out to me any provision in the Act under which government has the power to review its orders. I do not therefore, find my way to direct the government to dispose of Ext. P3, inasmuch as there is no obligation cast on them to dispose of any such non-maintainable petition. The original petition is dismissed. Issue carbon copy on usual terms. Dismissed.