JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - This writ petition is in reference to the running of cinema at Varanasi known as 'Kamla Pictures'. The licence under the U.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 & the U.P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' and 'Rules', was granted by licensing authority to opposite parties no. 3 to 6. The present writ petition is by an erstwhile owner of the land on which the cinema hall complex and some shops have been constructed. The land was sold, and thereafter sold again to the opposite parties who constructed a cinema hall on it. 2. The issue between the petitioner and the opposite parties arose on an allegation by the petitioner to the effect that the opposite parties had spread beyond the limits of their plot and encroached on the land of the petitioner as also elsewhere and, thus, had violated the law, to the effect that the plan which they had submitted upon which the licence was granted was not in accordance with law. 3. The petitioner filed a suit no. 242 of 1990 : Om Prakash Nigam v. Paras Nath. This suit is pending before the Munsif (Havali), Varanasi. An injunction was obtained by the petitioner restraining the opposite parties from proceeding with the construction of the cinema. Clearly the issue in the suit are whether the opposite parties have spread beyond the limits of their plots and encroached on the land of the petitioner and further whether their licence has been granted on a property plan which is correct and accurate so as not to encroach the properly of any one else. As the opposite parties would not appear before the trial court when he was specifically called on a certain date and take interest in the proceedings of the suit nor would answer the writ petition before this court, it occasioned an ad interim order to the effect, that the licence for the cinema would remain suspended until further orders. The order which was passed by this court on 8th October, 1991 is as below : "On the interim order, heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Standing Counsel, U.P. Om Prakash petitioner and opposite parties no. 4, 5 and 6 are at issues in pending proceedings before the Munsif, Havali, Varanasi, in suit no. 242 of 1990 : Om Prakash Nigam v. Paras Nath. 4, 5 and 6 are at issues in pending proceedings before the Munsif, Havali, Varanasi, in suit no. 242 of 1990 : Om Prakash Nigam v. Paras Nath. On 17 February, 1990 the aforesaid Munsif granted an injunction order to the effect that certain constructions shall not be made nor carried out and directed opposite parties (their father then party to the suit) to appear before the court when the matter was fixed on 28 February, 1990. Still the suit continues to remain pending before the trial court. In violation of the injunction construction has been carried out. The building is being used as a Cinema hall. This implies that the order of the Munsif restraining the construction of the cinema hall has had no meaning for the contesting defendants or for that matter the licensing authority who granted the licence for a cinema in a building which was not come up, but did, before the public of the area. This order of the trial court continues to be compromised and the contesting respondents though under notice by the High Court issued on 5 October, 1990, chose not to enter appearance in this case as presumably they have succeeded in the object they have intended to achieve. There can be no short cuts to disrespect the orders of the court. The licence for a cinema in building which is in dispute and alleged to be in violation of the injunction order of the Munsif, Havali, Varanasi, is questionable. Thus, the Cinematograph licence for exhibiting motion pictures in Kamla Hall Picture palace at village Khood Kala, Chakia, Chandauli, Varanasi shall remain suspended till further orders." 4. By now, the opposite parties have answered the writ petition by a counter affidavit and pleadings in the writ petition have been exchanged. 5. The opposite parties submit that the order of the Court by which the licence for exhibiting the motion pictures has been suspended be either recalled or modified so that they may carry on their business. 6. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for opp. party no. 3 to 6, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, & learned Standing Counsel, Mr. 6. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for opp. party no. 3 to 6, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, & learned Standing Counsel, Mr. G.L. Tripathi and examined the record of the writ petition one aspect is clear that there are issues between the parties to the effect that the opposite parties may have spread beyond the limits of their plot no. 229/3. This aspect is yet to be determined in the suit and on the merits, this court will refrain from commenting. This implies that the proceedings in the suit must go on. That there are issues between the petitioner and the opposite parties is a matter of record as the opposite parties accept in their counter affidavit of a reference to an extending area on which constructions may have been made as being 652 sq. fts. of extra land. The opposite parties are not very happy with this observation made by the Special Secretary (Entertainment Tax), U.P. Government in his order dated 16-7-1990. Thus, if what the petitioner contends is correct and what the State Government found in its order under section 7(1-A) of the Act aforesaid, as not incorrect, then there are issues which have yet to be determined whether the opposite parties have submitted a plan which was incorrect or have made constructions on the plots otherwise not in accordance with law. As the writ petition seeks a writ of certiorari, this much the High Court will say that the licensing authority should have meticulously considered the site plan and the plan to satisfy himself before the licence was granted, that the application seeking a licence for a running a cinema, as made under Rule 4 rests on the hypothesis that the plan on which the approval will be granted is a plan which was otherwise in accordance with law. 7. Any person intending to be benefited by a licence for running a cinema is subject to the same planning laws as any other rate-payer or person constructing a house, and the licensing authority is under an obligation that the building plans of a cinema hall conform strictly with the planning and zoning laws, which regulate urban planning. 7. Any person intending to be benefited by a licence for running a cinema is subject to the same planning laws as any other rate-payer or person constructing a house, and the licensing authority is under an obligation that the building plans of a cinema hall conform strictly with the planning and zoning laws, which regulate urban planning. In reference to the context also encroachment whether on public land or on private land, cannot be permitted as the plan itself upon which the licence is to be granted must adhere strictly according to law, failing which a licence cannot be granted. 8. This controversy whether the opposite parties have occupied or constructed on an area beyond their plot in the facts and circumstances of this case, apparently can only be determined in the pending suit as much evidence will have to be led that there has been a development beyond plot no. 229/4 and further to resolve the issue that there has been an encroachment on the petitioner's land. But, as the constructions have been completed there is a possibility, both ways, that the suit might succeed and yet it might-fail. Thus, it would be appropriate that substantial justice will be done in so far as the present petition is concerned that should the suit succeed then there must be adequate deterrent and sanction that the result will be implemented and will conform to the law. 9. Thus, while the High Court permits the opposite parties to run their cinema by modifying the order of 8-10-1991 so that the opposite parties utilise the licence, in accordance with law, but subject to the result of the suit on the following conditions :- (i) Before the trial court, opposite party no. 3 to 6 will offer a registered security in accordance with law, of an immovable property, of the same cinema hall and the buildings and the land on which they stand to the satisfaction of the trial court of an amount of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). The trial court will make appropriate orders on the security depending on the judgment in the suit; (ii) There will be a cash security before the licensing authority, that is, the District Magistrate, Varanasi in the nature of a fixed deposit Receipt in the joint name of the opposite parties, aforesaid, and the Licensing authority District Magistrate of an amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only). This security will be in the nature of a Fixed deposit Receipt drawn on a nationalised Bank but remain with the licensing authority for appropriate orders dependant upon the judgment in the suit; learned counsel for the opposite parties Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, undertakes that the securities as have been directed by the court will be offered before the appropriate authorities within a month from today. Thus the embargo put upon the opposite parties on the licence being suspended is lifted. should there he any default in the aforesaid conditions it has been made clear that the petitioner will be entitled to revive the petition for considering the position of default. (iii) In the sail the petitioner shall implead the State of U.P., Secretary, Entertainment Department, on that there is no impediment in producing appropriate evidence before the trial court in arriving at a correct assessment on the rival condition of the parties at issues. (iv) The suit will proceed without unnecessary adjournments. 10. Learned counsel for the parties, this is, the petitioner and the contesting opposite parties no. 3 to 6 and learned Standing counsel are agreed that upon the present order having been passed, the writ petition be considered as having been decided. Their consent is the occasion for the court, to order accordingly. 11. Thus the petition succeeds, in part, and is decided in terms of the order which has been rendered, as above. 12. There will be no order on costs.