S. MOHAN, CJ. ( 1 ) THE respondent (Veerappa) was granted a licence to run a touring cinema at Soolebavi, hunagund taluk in Bijapur District. He made an application on 13th January, 1986 for the renewal of the saidilicence. On 16-1-1986 he also made an application for the issuance of fresh 'no objection Certificate' (to be shortly called 'noc') under the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) rules, 1971 (to be called the 'rules' ). The application for the renewal of licence was pending. It was at this stage the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) (Amendment) Act came into force. That contained an enabling provision, by reason of which all those who held licence for touring cinema on or before 25-2-1987 (the date on which the amending Act came into force) were enabled to renew their NOC for converting the touring cinema into a semi permanent cinema. Since the applications of the respondent for grant of NOC were under consideration, in that the Tahsildar, hunagund, on 8-8-1986 replied him that the matter was under such consideration. He contended that he had fully satisfied the amendment and, therefore, he was entitled to the conversion prayed for, for which he had filed the necessary form in Form-AA in accordance with Rule 105 of 1987 Rules on 22-5-1987. That application for conversion was rejected on the ground that he did not have licence for running a touring cinema on 25-2-1987. He thereupon preferred a writ petition 12140 of 1988 praying for a direction to consider his application and to quash the order dated 8-8-1988. But the prayer for conversion was dismissed. The learned Judge, while dismissing the said prayer was of the view that inasmuch as the application of the petitioner dated 13-1-1986 for the renewal of the licence was pending, likewise the application for grant of fresh NOC dated 16-1-1986 was also pending, after being processed upto a certain stage, the appellant was not to be blamed and, therefore, having regard to the intendment of the amending rules, he would be entitled to conversion. In support of this conclusion the learned Judge, relied upon the Judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court reported in Srinivasa Chilra Mandira v Government of Karnataka, 1987 (3) Kar. L. J. 612: ILR 1988 (2) Karnataka 1431. In support of this conclusion the learned Judge, relied upon the Judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court reported in Srinivasa Chilra Mandira v Government of Karnataka, 1987 (3) Kar. L. J. 612: ILR 1988 (2) Karnataka 1431. Accordingly, the learned Judge, allowed the writ petition and directed the District Magistrate, Bijapur, to reconsider the application for conversion dated 22-5-1987 and pass orders in accordance with law and in view of the directions issued by him. ( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by this Judgment the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Bijapur, who was the respondent in the writ petition has come by way of appeal. ( 3 ) THE learned Government Advocate for the Appellant urges before us that the learned single Judge was wrong in issuing the direction because the application made for renewal of licence dated 13-1-1986 was still to be considered and orders passed. Further there was not even a valid NOC for which an application for renewal was filed on 16-1-1986. Assuming without admitting that after consideration of NOC licence would have been granted and it would have been renewed only up to 31-12-1986, thereafter what would have happened, one cannot hazard and guess only when there was licence for the year 1987 and if the NOC was valid on the relevant dale, viz. , 25-2-1987, he would be entitled to conversion. In this case both these are totally lacking. The learned Judge was not right in relying on the ruling reported in 1987 (3) Kar. LJ. 612 : ILR 1988 (2) Kar. 1431. For two reasons factually it is distinguishable. In the said ruling two writ petitions came to be dealt with and both the petitioners therein had licence on the crucial date, viz. , 25-2-1987, and NOC came to be renewed, whereupon conversion was directed. Here it is not so. ( 4 ) LEGALLY speaking that ruling cannot be said to lay down the correct law since that deals with the renewal. There is difference between noc and licence for a touring cinema. This statement obliterates the well laid distinction between a mere NOC and licence. No person merely on the strength of an NOC can gel as a right a licence. Licence is issued on the basis of NOC. But that does not mean there is any automatic right. There is difference between noc and licence for a touring cinema. This statement obliterates the well laid distinction between a mere NOC and licence. No person merely on the strength of an NOC can gel as a right a licence. Licence is issued on the basis of NOC. But that does not mean there is any automatic right. Equally no cinema operator is hauled up for the violation of the NOC because it does not contain any condition. It is entirely the licence which contains all the conditions, the breach of which will enable the licencing authority to take action. However, if really the existence of licence is required under the amending act, it would amount to hostile discrimination is again wrong. For all these reasons he prays that the writ appeal be allowed. ( 5 ) IN opposition to this, the learned Counsel for the respondent, viz. , the writ petitioner, who succeeded before the learned Judge, would urge that for no fault of the respondent herein his application for renewal of licence dated 13-1-1986, equally his application for renewal of the NOC dated 16-1-1986 were kept pending. It is common case that those applications were processed up to a particular stage and thereafter nothing was heard of. We, therefore, see that the respondent is not to be blamed in any manner by the inaction on the part of the appellant. Further, it was this aspect of the matter which the learned judge, has relied upon. If really the licence is based on a no objection certificate and what is ultimately renewed under the amending Act is only the NOC and not the licence, the observation contained in 1987 (3) Kar. LJ. 612 : ILR 1988 (2) Kar. 1431 will hold good in this case as well. That was why the learned Judge in the judgment has rightly relied on the said decision. ( 6 ) AFTER setting out the facts we will proceed to the legal back-ground which we consider essential having regard to the observation contained in the Judgment cited viz. , ILR 1988 (2) kar. 1431. In this case, the respondent as we stated above made an application for renewal, for his touring cinema licence on 13-1-1986. Along with the application he produced the certificates issued by the Karnataka Electricity board and the Public Works Department. Thereafter action was taken by the District magistrate, Bijapur. , ILR 1988 (2) kar. 1431. In this case, the respondent as we stated above made an application for renewal, for his touring cinema licence on 13-1-1986. Along with the application he produced the certificates issued by the Karnataka Electricity board and the Public Works Department. Thereafter action was taken by the District magistrate, Bijapur. Reports were called for from the various departments. The Assistant executive Engineer, No. 3 Sub Division, P. W. D. issued a fitness certificate under the rules for the period from 1-1-1986 to 31-12-1986. So also the deputy Electrical Inspector, Bijapur, and the secretary of the Village Panchayat, Sulebavi had expressed no objection for the renewal. The respondent also credited the necessary licence fee for the continuation of licence beyond 31-12-1986 and when the application for renewal of licence was pending the respondent made another application on 16-1-1986 for the grant of a fresh NOC. Action was taken on that application by issuance of a notice. The District magistrate, Bijapur, called for objection of the villagers. The said notice was published in the local news papers. The Tahsildar, Hunagund, by his letter dated 8-8-1986 replied that no objections were filed by anyone objecting to the grant of licence. Since no further action to the grant of NOC was taken by the District magistrate, Bijapur, the respondent wrote a reminder to the District Magistrate, asking for expeditious disposal of the grant of NOC as well as licence. These are the very important facts to be borne-in-mind. IN this factual background we have to go to the legal provisions. The Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964 is an Act for regulating exhibition by means of cinemato- graphs and licenced places in each cinema where films are exhibited in the State of Karnataka. Under Section 4, the licencing authority is the District magistrate. Section 4 requires that no person shall give an exhibition by means of cinematograph elsewhere than in a place licenced under this Act, or otherwise than in compliance with any conditions and restrictions imposed by such licence under this Act. As to what are the matters to be considered as and when licence is to be granted are detailed under section 6 of the Act. Against the refusal of a licence or any person aggrieved by the decision of the licensing authority may file an appeal under Section 10 of the Act. As to what are the matters to be considered as and when licence is to be granted are detailed under section 6 of the Act. Against the refusal of a licence or any person aggrieved by the decision of the licensing authority may file an appeal under Section 10 of the Act. Section 19 is the Rule making section. It is by virtue of the said section Rules are made and they are called Karnataka Cinemas Regulation Rules of 1971. Chapter IV deals with permanent cinemas and talks of approval of location of permanent cinema. Like-wise Chapter 12 deals with Touring cinemas. Rule 96 lays down the procedur for the grant of 'no Objection Certificate'. It should be remembered that the NOC is with reference to the consideration of the building for the exhibition of cinematograph film by touring cinemas in accordance with Rule 20. The application is prescribed in Form A. As a matter of fact, Rule 96 postulates inviting objections from the local authority concerned for its opinion regarding: (1) the suitability, (2) or otherwise of the site for the location of the touring cinema. As a matter of fact, it is also open to the authority to make an inspection and then satisfy himself as to the location. The reason why we are now pointing out this is, the NOC is one which relates to the suitability or otherwise of the site, and has nothing to do with the exhibition of cinematograph film. It is thereafter when NOC is granted and within two months under Section 96 (6) the building is complete, it is open to the person seeking to obtain a licence to apply under Rule 97. At that time he has to produce- (1) copy of the NOC granted under Rule 96; (2) a certificate from the electrical Inspector and declaration prescribed in clause (c) of Rule 35; and (3) a treasury receipt for payment of fees for the licence at the rates prescribed in Rule 106; and also a certificate from the Assistant Executive Engineer in-charge of Communication and buildings. Then again, on a consideration of all this under Rule 98 the licencing authority may grant or refuse. Then again, on a consideration of all this under Rule 98 the licencing authority may grant or refuse. What we are endeavouring to point out at this stage is merely because a person is armed with NOC he is not entitled to as a matter of right, as rightly urged by the learned Government advocate, for a licence. At this stage it is necessary on our part to note that these rules have been amended by the Karnataka Cinema (Regulation) (Amendment) Rules, 1987. However, we need not go into the details of the amendment, because there again the same position is maintained. As a matter of fact, it has been made more stringent with regard to the grant of licence under Rule 90. Under Rule 90, the application for grant of licence has to be granted only after the report of the Appellant, as well as the Health Authorities including the local authority and the certification relating to electrical installation. So the process as such do not codify into one, it does not specifically, still it enables the authority to grant or refuse the licence. In other words the procedure under the old Rules have now been made into one process instead of two processes available as to the grant of NOC and the licence. It is in this background we have to deal with Rule 105, which is the essential rule here. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 105 is as follows:" (1) Any person who is having touring cinema licence under these Rules before the date of commencement of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) (Amendment) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter in this rule referred to as the Amendment Rules) and desires to convert such touring cinema into semi-permanent cinema may, within three months from the date of commencement of the amendment rules, applied in Form-A for conversion of existing no Objection Certificate into No Objection Certificate for semi-permanent cinema. "having regard to what we have stated earlier and there-being a well maintained distinction between No Objection Certificate and the licence, prior to the amending Act, we are of the view that the Legislature has virtually used the words in the opening of the sub-rule any person who is having a touring cinema licence and who comes up for renewal should satisfy under rule 105 for conversion of the NOC from the touring cinema to semi-permanent cinema. ( 7 ) IT follows that the two essential prerequisites for renewal are: (1) having a touring cinema licence prior to 28-2-1987 (the date on which the amended rules came into force) and (2) application be made within three months from 28-2-1987. The whole question in this case is whether the respondent had licence for touring cinema. Admittedly, as seen in the narration of the facts earlier, he did not have licence as on fact. The applications for not only the licence, but as well as NOC had been made for renewal on 13-1-1986 and 16-1-1986 respectively. Assuming they had been granted, they would have renewed only until 31-12-1986. Therefore, there was no possibility of making an application on 19-8-1987 for renewal from 1-11-1987 to 31-12-1987. We are now concerned with the position as on 28-2-1987. But on that day the respondent had neither a licence nor a NOC for renewal, though factually his applications with regard to licence and NOC for the year 1986 were required to be granted. We are assuming for the purposes of this case that having processed his applications he should not be let down. But that docs not take the respondent far because in the year 1987 viz. , on the crucial date i. e. , on 28-2-1987, he was placed for examination in the light of these legal provision. The rejection made by the District Magistrate of the application of the respondent for conversion dated 22-5-1987 was in order. However, the learned judge, chose to rely on the decision reported in 1987 (3) Kar L. J. 612 : ILR 1988 Kar. 1431. Here again as rightly contended by the learned government Advocate factually that case is distinguishable. That ruling deals with two writ petitions commencing from paragraph 4 of the judgment in W. P. No. 11562 of 1987. The petitioner had been granted a licence for a period of three months on 29-4-1987. During the pendency of the licence he filed an application for conversion. In W. P. No. 12525 of 1987 the petitioner was granted licence on 16-5-1987 for a period of three months. Based on that licence he made an application in Form AA on 23-5-1987. Therefore on the material date on 28-2-1987 though the petitioner had a licence, within three months he could seek for a conversion. Here it is not so. In W. P. No. 12525 of 1987 the petitioner was granted licence on 16-5-1987 for a period of three months. Based on that licence he made an application in Form AA on 23-5-1987. Therefore on the material date on 28-2-1987 though the petitioner had a licence, within three months he could seek for a conversion. Here it is not so. ( 8 ) COMING to the question of law, the learned Judge observes in paragraph 13. 4 at page 1450 as under:"these objects are not in any way affected by allowing the holders of NOC for a touring cinema as on the date 1987 Rules came into force, to have the NOC converted for a semi-permanent cinema. In fact there is no difference between a NOC holder and licence holder for a touring cinema for the purpose of conversion of a touring cinema into semi-permanent cinema. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 105 of the 1987 Rules, it is the NOC of a touring cinema that is permitted to be converted into a NOC for a semi-permanent cinema. Therefore the fact that one held a licence on the date of coming into force of 1987 Rules and another held a mere NOC should not make any difference inasmuch as the NOC's held by both of them relate to a touring cinema only. As it is already pointed out one of the objects of 1987 Rules is to permit the NOC of a touring cinema to be converted into a NOC for a semi-permanent cinema. As long as the NOC issued under the 1971 Rules form an integral part of the licence and it is that noc that is converted into NOC for a semi-permanent cinema, there cannot be any justification for classifying a NOC holder and a licence holder into two different categories and such a classification is neither based on any intelligible differentia nor it has any nexus with the object of the 1987 Rules. There is no understandable and reasonable basis at all for such a classification. When for all practical purposes and for purposes of 1971 Rules, NOC for a touring cinema forms an integral part of licence, the holder of it cannot be classified into a different category and he cannot be subjected to a differential treatment and placed at a disadvantage. "with great respect we are unable to agree. When for all practical purposes and for purposes of 1971 Rules, NOC for a touring cinema forms an integral part of licence, the holder of it cannot be classified into a different category and he cannot be subjected to a differential treatment and placed at a disadvantage. "with great respect we are unable to agree. We have already pointed out that there is a marked distinction prior to the amendment between a noc and a licence. NOC relates only to the suitability of the site. That is the basis on which the grant of licence is made. That does not mean there can be no difference between a NOC holder and a licence holder. ( 9 ) IT is true that the object of 1987 Rules is to permit the NOC of a touring cinema to be converted into NOC for a semi-permanent cinema. But that does not mean there could be classification between a NOC holder and a licence holder. We find great difficulty in appreciating the learned Judge, when he says there cannot be any justification for classifying a NOC holder and a licence holder for two different categories and as such a classification is neither based on an intelligible differentia nor it has any nexus with the object of 1987 Rules. There is no understandable and reasonable basis at all for such a classification. ( 10 ) IT should be remembered in this connection that the classification between two categories was in the nature of Rules then stood, but that does not mean there is any lack of understandable or reasonable basis. With respect we hold that this is not the correct position of law. Accordingly we overrule the position of law as set-out by the learned single Judge. It may be that the new Rules do not make a distinction between a NOC and the licence. As we have pointed out earlier the very object of the present rule 90, is to make the position more stringent having regard to the number of authorities, which required to certify or report about the grant of licence. But that does not mean why nothing enabling the provisions of Rule 105, on par with the then existing law viz. , prior to 25-2-1987. If distinction is made between the NOC and the licence it would be unreasonable. ( 11 ) IN the result the writ appeal stands allowed. But that does not mean why nothing enabling the provisions of Rule 105, on par with the then existing law viz. , prior to 25-2-1987. If distinction is made between the NOC and the licence it would be unreasonable. ( 11 ) IN the result the writ appeal stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Writ Appeals allowed. --- *** --- .