JUDGMENT S.K. Dhaon, J. - The communication dated 4th September, 1989, whereby the Licensing Authority purported to refuse to issue a certificate to the petitioner as contemplated in sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the U.P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) is being impugned in the present petition. 2. The writ petition has not been formally admitted as yet, although affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. With the consent of their counsel the petition is being disposed of finally. 3. The petitioner was desirous of constructing a permanent building to be used for cinematograph exhibition. He made an application on 1st February, 1989, accompanied by a site plan. On 15th February, 1989, the District Magistrate directed the Sub- Divisional Magistrate to make a spot inspection and submit his report as to whether the site plan was in accordance with the Rules. On 29th February, 1989, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate reported that the application fulfilled the required conditions. In compliance with the letter dated 15th Febuary, 1989; of the Entertainment Tax Officer, the petitioner did the needful. On 2nd June, 1989, the Executive Engineer. Public Works Department, reported to the District Magistrate that the site plan fulfilled all the conditions as required by the Rules. On 4th September, 1989, the impugned communication was sent by the District Magistrate (Licensing Authority) stating therein that since the petitioner had already commenced constructions, the question of issuing a certificate did not arise. 4. The Rules have apparently been framed under sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Cinematograph Act, 1918 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), According to the preamble, the Legislature purported to make provisions for regulating exhibitions by means of cinematography. Section 2 contains the definition clause, which defines "place" to include also a house, building etc. "Prescribed" is defined to mean prescribed by rules made under the Act. Section 3 provides that save as otherwise provided in the Act, no person shall give an exhibition by means of a cinematograph elsewhere than in a place licensed under the Act, or otherwise than in compliance with any condition and restrictions imposed by such licence. Section 4 talks of a Licensing Authority and mandates that normally the District Magistrate shall be such an authority. Section 5 deals with the restrictions on powers of Licensing Authority. Section 4 talks of a Licensing Authority and mandates that normally the District Magistrate shall be such an authority. Section 5 deals with the restrictions on powers of Licensing Authority. In sub-section (2) the emphasis is laid on the film which may be exhibited by a licensee in such place in respect of which the licence is to be given. It is also provided that subject to the control of the State Government, the Licensing Authority may grant licences under the Act to such persons as it thinks fit and on such terms and conditions and subject to such restrictions as it may determine. Section 6 deals with certification of films. Section 7 empowers the State Government or local authority to suspend exhibition of films in certain cases. Section 8 provides for penalties. Suction 9 confers the powers to make Rules, Sub-section (1) of the said provision employers the Central Government to make Rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (2) is not relevant for the present controversy. Sub-section (3) lays down that the State Government may make Rules to provide for the regulation of cinematograph exhibitions for securing the public safety and the fees to he levied for licensing buildings for cinematograph and exhibitions for inspection of electric installations in such buildings. 5. The Rules came into effect on 1st February, 1951. They apply to all cinemas in Uttar Pradesh, Rules 2 contains the definitions of a number of expressions. We are concerned with only a few of them. "Act" means the Cinematograph Act, 1918, as amended from time to time. "Permanent building" means a building which is constructed for permanent use with stone, mud, brick, mortar, cement or other non-inflammable material. Rule 3 deals with the application for constructing a building. Rule 4 pertains to an application for the grant of the licence for it new cinematograph exhibition. Rules 5 and 6 respectively provide for inspection by electric inspector and inspection by Medical Officer of Health and Regional Fire Officer. Rule 7 lays down the conditions for granting and renewing a lincence. Rule 8 deals with the requirements of permanent buildings. Rule 9 refers to the term for which the lincence for cinematograph exhibition may be granted in respect of a permanent building. Rule 7 lays down the conditions for granting and renewing a lincence. Rule 8 deals with the requirements of permanent buildings. Rule 9 refers to the term for which the lincence for cinematograph exhibition may be granted in respect of a permanent building. Rules 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 respectively relate to electrical requirements, ventilation, sanitation, seating accommodation, exits and fire precautions. Rule 17 talks of the fire- extinguishing appliances to be provided. The other Rules also prescribe the details of projection room etc. Rule 43 provides for the revocation or suspension of licence. 6. The Act was repealed by Section 18 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The proviso to this provision recites that in relation to Part A and Part B States the repeal shall have effect only in so far as the said Act relates to the sanctioning of cinematograph films for exhibition. Thus, it is clear that the present controversy will have to be resolved on an interpretation of the provisions of the Act (1918) and the Rules. 7. The statutes are designed to regulate exhibition by means of cinematograph and it appears that the purpose is largely recreative or educational. We have now already referred to Section 3, which places an embargo upon the exhibition of a cinematograph at a place other than the one licensed under the Act. We may read Section 5, as relevant. It enjoines that the Licensing Authority shall not grant a licence under the Act, unless it is satisfied that the Rules made under the Act have been substantial y complied with (underlining by us) and adequate precautions have been taken in the place in respect of which the licence is to be given to provide for the safety of persons attending exhibitions therein. We have already referred to sub-section (3) of Section 9 wherein the emphasis is on public safety. Rule 3, on which the impugned communication is based, may he extracted : "3. Application for constructing a building - (1) A person desirous of constructing a permanent building to he used for cinematograph exhibition shall submit an application specifying the site on which the proposed building is to he constructed together with it plan and specifications thereof to the officer authorised in this behalf by Government. Application for constructing a building - (1) A person desirous of constructing a permanent building to he used for cinematograph exhibition shall submit an application specifying the site on which the proposed building is to he constructed together with it plan and specifications thereof to the officer authorised in this behalf by Government. (2) The plan mentioned in the aforesaid sub-rule shall contain the elevations and section of the buildings, the proposed electrical installations, arrangements for ventilation, sanitation and parking of vehicles and the position of the premises in relation to adjacent premises and public thoroughfares on which the building abuts, within a radius of one furlong. (3) The Licensing Authority may, if it is satisfied that the site plans and specifications fully conform to the rules, grant to the applicant a certificate signifying his approval thereto. The period within which the construction shall he completed shall also he stated in the certificate." 8. In the substance, the emphasis is that the application should pin-point the site on which the proposed building is to be constructed and it should be accompanied by a site plan. Further, the site plan should contain the particulars as referred to in sub- rule (2). The satisfaction of the Licensing Authority in sub-rule (3) is focused on the fact that the site plan and the specifications contained therein should fully conform to the Rules. Obviously, the Rules referred in sub-rule (3) are those contained in sub-rules (1) and (2). The word "certificate" as used in sub-rule (3) is significant as it imports that the authority certifying knows the fact or facts that he certifies. As already indicated, the fact that the Licensing Authority certifies is that the site plan and the specifications fully conform to the Rules. It is true that the certificate to be issued by the Licensing Authority is required to indicate the period within which the construction shall be completed. However, Rule 3, if read as a whole,cannot be construed to mean that the Licensing Authority is empowered to refuse a certificate merely on the ground that a prospective licensee has commenced constructions prior to the approval of the Licensing Authority. We have already indicated that Rule 3 required the Licensing Authority to confine his attention to the fact that the site plan and the specification conform to the Rules. We have already indicated that Rule 3 required the Licensing Authority to confine his attention to the fact that the site plan and the specification conform to the Rules. Without deciding the question finally, we may assume, for the purposes of the present case, that the Licensing Authority may also advert himself to the conditions laid down in Rule 7 while granting a certificate. We have, therefore, no difficulty in taking the view that on a plain reading of Rule 3 the Licensing Authority refused to grant a certificate to the petitioner on an irrelevant or extraneous consideration. 9. Rule 4 may, at this stage, be also considered for the purpose of interpreting Rule-3 and for ascertaining the intention of the Rule-making authority. This Rule deals with an application for the grant of a licence for cinematograph exhibition. It emphasises that the application for such a licence shall contain full particulars of the ownership of the premises and shall he accompanied by the order of approval of plan under sub-rule (I) of Rule 3 and the plan of the building and premises containing the specifications enumerated in sub-rule (2) of Rule 3. This clearly indicates that at the stage of the grant of the licence for cinematograph exhibition the Licensing Authority is under an obligation to examine the question as to whether the approval of the plan as given by the sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 was in accordance with the plan of the building and premises as well as the specifications referred to in sub-rule (2) of Rule 3. The other requirements in Rule 4, namely, the plan of seating arrangements, the certificate from the Electrical Inspector, the certificate from the Medical Officer of Health and the certificate from the Regional Fire Officer go to indicate that the licence was to be granted only after a permanent building had come into existence. In other words, the existence of a permanent building was a sine qua non to the consideration of an application for the grant of a licence for cinematograph exhibition. We have already indicated that in Rule 4 it was implicit that the Licensing Authority could have refused to grant the licence on the ground that the permanent building had been raised without conforming to the relevant Rules. We have already indicated that in Rule 4 it was implicit that the Licensing Authority could have refused to grant the licence on the ground that the permanent building had been raised without conforming to the relevant Rules. To put it differently, the decision of the Licensing Authority in rejecting such an application for licence would have been on a relevant consideration. Therefore, it is-clear that the Rule-making authority did not intend that the Licensing Authority could refuse to grant a certificate on the mere ground that an applicant for a licence had commenced the construction of a permanent building and had even completed the constructions. 10. It is trite law that while construing a statute the element of hardship should not be ignored, if two constructions are possible. There may be a case where the person may have constructed a permanent building to be used for cinematograph exhibition and the said building met all the requirement of the relevant Rules; but the same could not be used for the purpose for which it was constructed in the absence of a licence for cinematograph exhibition. If the view point if the Licensing Authority, as contained in the impugned communication, is accepted, it will not only cause an irreparable injury and real hardship to an intending licensee, but public interest may also suffer in so far as a building will be allowed to exist without being put to a proper use. "Public safety" too will not he jeopardised. 11. The expression used in sub-rule(3) of Rule 3 is approval and not a prior approval. In the context and setting of the Rules, the giving of a subsequent approval is neither expressly nor impliedly prohibited. In Shakir Husain v. Chandoo Lal, AIR 1931 All 567 (FH) it has been held that ordinarily the difference between the approval and permission is that, in the first the act holds good until disapproved, while in the other case it does not become effective until permission is obtained. It follows that the Licensing Authority could refuse to grant a certificate not on the ground that the constructions had commenced but on the ground that the constructions-had been raised contrary to the plan furnished and in disregard of the specifications required. 12. Section 8 of the Act also throws some light on the controversy. It follows that the Licensing Authority could refuse to grant a certificate not on the ground that the constructions had commenced but on the ground that the constructions-had been raised contrary to the plan furnished and in disregard of the specifications required. 12. Section 8 of the Act also throws some light on the controversy. It provides for punishment in cases of use of a cinematograph or the use of any place in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules or of the conditions or restrictions upon, or subject to which any licence has been granted under the Act. Therefore, so far as the place, that is, the permanent building is concerned, an offence will he committed only if it is put to use in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder or in contravention of the terms of the licence. The petitioner did not commit any offence when he commenced construction of a permanent building without obtaining a certificate of approval from the Licensing Authority. This suggests that the Rule-making authority does not consider that obtaining of the approval of the Licensing Authority as a condition precedent to the commencement of the construction. Afortiori the Rule is not mandatory. 13. Section 5 too lays emphasis on the substantial compliance of the Rules made under the Act. We have already indicated that indisputably the petitioner submitted his application accompanied with the site plan in complete conformity with the requirements of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3. Indeed, the Licensing Authority has not refused to grant a certificate on any ground except that the petitioner commenced constructions prior to the Licensing Authority's approval. Therefore, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the Licensing Authority glossed over the provisions as contained in Section 5 and, therefore, committed an illegality in issuing the impugned communication. 14. The petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned communication dated 4th September, 1989, issued by the Licensing Authority (Annexure 7) is quashed. It is directed to exercise its powers under sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the U.P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951 on merits and in accordance with law and in disregard of the fact that the petitioner had commenced construction of a permanent building. 15. The petitioner is entitled to his costs.