JUDGMENT : G.P. Mathur, J. The Petitioners moved an application on 20-5-1988 before the District Magistrate, Deoria, under Rule 3 of U.P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951 (herein after referred to as the Rules) for grant of a certificate of approval, for constructing a permanent building to be used for cinematograph exhibition on plot Nos. 892 and 893 situate in Kais town in the district of Deoria. The District Magistrate, who is the Licensing Authority as defined in Sub-rule (vii) of Rule 2 of the Rules, got necessary inquiries made. After inquiry it was found that the site on which the Petitioners wanted to construct the building was situate within a radius of 75 metres of Mahanirvan Sanskrit Mahavidyalay. Since the site proposed by the Petitioners was within the prohibited distance as mentioned in Sub-rule (b) of Rule 7(2) of the Rules, the application for certificate of approval was rejected by the Licensing Authority on 24-2-1990. The Petitioners then filed an appeal before the state Government which was also dismissed on 26-4-1990, The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the aforesaid orders dated 24-2-1990 and 26-4-1990 and also for a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to allow the application of the Petitioners dated 20-5-1988. 2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and we pose to dispose of this petition finally at the admission stage in accordance with the Rules of Court. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that another cinema hall within a radius of 75 metres of the Sanskrit institution was already in existence and the running of the said cinema was not causing any disturbance to the studies of the students of the aforesaid Sanskrit institution. He also contended that the pracharya (principal) of the institution has given in writing that the construction of the proposed cinema hall not cause any adverse effect on the studies of the students. The building of the cinema hall is cnnstructed in such a manner that it becomes sound proof and will not cause disturbance of any kind. It was contended on behalf of the Respondents that the Mahanirvan Sanskrit Mahavidayalaya was affiliated to Dr. Sampurananand Sanskrit University and was imparting education up to Shastri class which was equivalent to B.A. degree. The Sanskrit institution was in existence for the last several years. It was contended on behalf of the Respondents that the Mahanirvan Sanskrit Mahavidayalaya was affiliated to Dr. Sampurananand Sanskrit University and was imparting education up to Shastri class which was equivalent to B.A. degree. The Sanskrit institution was in existence for the last several years. It was further contended that the Manager of the institution by his letter dated 20-2-1910 had raised objection to the construction of the cinema hall on the proposed site and had also informed that the Petitioners had obtained some writing from the principal by playing fraud. The Manager had also informed that more than 100 students were getting education in the institution and the construction of the cinema hall seriously affect their studies. The State Government has recorded a finding that in case approval was given for construction of the cinema hall on the site proposed by the Petitioners it will cause disturbance and will seriously affect the working of the educational institution. In our opinion what is to be seen is whether the proposed site is within a ridius of 75 metres from any recognised educational institution Sub-rule (b) of Rule 7(2) of the Rules clearly lays down that no building shall be licensed if it is situate within a radius of 75 metres from any recognised educational institution. If the site of the building is situate within the prohibited distance from a recognised educational institution no approval can be accorded under Rule 3(3) of the Rules. The opinion of the principal or the Manager to the effect that the construction of the cinema hall will not cause any disturbance or will not affect the studies of the students is wholly irrelevant and cannot be taken into consideration while considering an application moved under Rule 3 of the Rules. Since the Licensing Authority has recorded a finding that the site over which the Petitioners wanted to construct a permanent building for a cinema hall within a radius of 75 metres from a recognised educational institution, the application moved by the Petitioners was rightly rejected. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners then contended that U.P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951, were made by the U.P. Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9(3) of the Cinematograph Act, 1918, but this Act was repealed by Section 12(1) of U.P. Cinemas-(Regulation) Act, 1955, and therefore, the rules also stood automatically repealed. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners then contended that U.P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951, were made by the U.P. Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9(3) of the Cinematograph Act, 1918, but this Act was repealed by Section 12(1) of U.P. Cinemas-(Regulation) Act, 1955, and therefore, the rules also stood automatically repealed. The contention raised by the learned Counsel is wholly misconceived. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the U.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, Jays down that any rule made under the Cinematograph Act, 1918, and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be in operation. Therefore, U.P. cinematograph Rules, 1951, were not repealed and continue to be in force. 6. It was next contended that the U.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, only contemplates grant of a licence to give an exhibition by means of cinematograph and it does not contemplate grant of approval to the site on which the proposed building is to be constructed and, therefore, Rule 3 was ultra vires and was beyond the rule making power. As stated earlier the rules were framed by U.P. Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9 of Cinematograph Act, 1918. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 laid down that the State Government may make rules to provide for the regulation of cinematograph exhibition for securing the public safety. In our opinion the words securing the public safety. Used in this Sub-rule were of very wide import and the State Government could make Rule 3 in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (3) of Section 9, similarly Section 13 of U.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, gives the State Government power to make rules for the purpose of carrying the provisions of the Act into effect. Sub-section (2) of Section 13 provides that in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers rules made under the Act may provide for the situation and regulation of the places at which, and the conditions subject to which, exhibitions by means of cinematograph may be made. Section 2(d) provides that the word 'place' includes a house, building, tent or other structure. There fore, the word 'place' will also include the site where the building of the cinema hall is proposed to be constructed. Section 2(d) provides that the word 'place' includes a house, building, tent or other structure. There fore, the word 'place' will also include the site where the building of the cinema hall is proposed to be constructed. Since Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act gives powers to the State Government to make rules to provide for situation and regulation of place at which exhibition by means of cinematograph may be given, as a corollary it gives power to the state Government to make a rule providing for prior approval of the site and plan of a building propsed to be constructed for giving cinematograph exhibition. 7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners than contended on the basis of Section 5 of U.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, that only substantial compliance of the Rules was required and the application moved by the Petitioners for the grant of approval had been illegally rejected. In order to appreciate the argument advanced by the learned Counsel it will be useful to quote the relevant provision of Section 5: 5. Restrictions on the powers of licensing authority. (1) The licensing authority shall not grant a licence under this Act unless it is satisfied that-- (a) The rules made under this Act have been substantially complied with and: (aa) the building or other place in which cinematograph exhibition proposed to be given-- (i) is situated at the distance of not less than 200 metres from the Raj Bhawn, the State Government Secretariat, the High Court, the State public service Commission or the Board of Revenue; (ii) is situated at such minimum distance as may be prescribed from other public buildings and from recognised educational and other public institutions and public hospitals; ... ... ... ... ... ... ... A perusal of Section 5(1) will show that it is in several parts. Clause (a) lays down that the licensing authority shall not grant a licence unless it is satisfied that the rules made under the Act nave been substantially complied with. However, Clauses (aa) of Section 5(1) is not qualified by the words 'substantially complied with.' It is therefore, clear that so for as Clause (aa), which relates to the minimum distance of the building in which cinematograph exhibition is proposed to given, from Raj Bhawn, Secretariat, High Court and recognised educational Institutions etc., is concerned, it has to be strictly complied with. Rules 8 to 26 pro ride for the nature of the permanent building, ventilation, sanitation, seating accommodation, exists, electrification, machines and storage etc Clause (a) will cover the requirements of Rules 8 to 26 in its, ambit. We should not be under stood to be laying down that more substantial compliance of Rules 8 to 26 of the Rules will entitle a cinematograph exhibitor to obtain in licence, but the rules do show that the licensing authority has a discretion in the matter and he may grant a licence on substantial compliance of some of the provisions of the aforesaid rules. However, with regard to the restriction imposed by Clause (aa) of Section 5(1) and Clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 7(2) of the Rules, the licensing authority cannot grant a licence unless the requirements of the aforesaid provisions have been strictly complied with and a mere substantial compliance is not enough. Since in the present case the proposed site was situate within 75 metres from a recognised educational institution as provided in Clause (b) of Rule 7(2) of the Rules, a mere substantial compliance of the Rules would not entitled a grant of certificate in favour of the Petitioners and such a certificate could only be granted if the provisions of the Rules had been stricty complied with. The contention raised by the learned Counsel has therefore, no substance and is liable to be rejected. 8. It was then contended that u/s 10 of the 1955 Act the State Government had the power to grant exemption from any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made there under and the Petitioners application for grant of approval should have been allowed after granting exemption from the provisions of Clause (b) of Rule 7(2). From the record of the case we do not find that any application had been moved by the Petitioners for the grant of exemption in their favour. Section 10 of the Act confers power of exemption only to the State Government and not to the licensing authority. There is no averment in the writ petition that the Petitioners made any application for grant of excerption nor copy of any such application has been filed. Since the Petitioners did not make any application for grant of exemption there was no question of exercising such a power by the State Government u/s 10 of the Act. There is no averment in the writ petition that the Petitioners made any application for grant of excerption nor copy of any such application has been filed. Since the Petitioners did not make any application for grant of exemption there was no question of exercising such a power by the State Government u/s 10 of the Act. If the Petitioners move such an application before the State Government now the same may be considered by it in accordance with law. 9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners also contended that towards north-west of the proposed site another cinema hall by the name of 'Jaiprakash Chitra Mandir' is already running since 1972 and therefore the Petitioners should have been given a certificate of approval. He also contended that another cinema hall with the name of 'Pratibha Chitra Mandir' was granted licence although it has been constructed just adjacent to the Secretariat building in Lucknow which showed that strict compliance of the Rules was not being insisted upon by the licensing authorities or the State Government. In our opinion the contention raised by the learned Counsel is wholly misconceived. The necessary details of the aforesaid two cinema halls have not been placed on the record nor it has been mentioned as to when the certificate of approval was granted in their favour. It may be mentioned here that Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 has been amended by Notification No. XXL (1)/1973-GAD-1 dated August 1, 1974, prior to the amendment there was a proviso to Sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 which gave power to the District Magistrate/Licensing Authority to relax the rule. This provision has been deleted with effect from 1st August, 1974. Therefore, the Petitioners cannot get any benefit from the mere fact that previously some other cinema halls had been given licence although they were situate within the prohibited distance. 10. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance on a Supreme Court decision in State of U.P. and Another Vs. Raja Ram Jaiswal and Another, (1985) 3 SCC 131 . in support of his submission that the Petitioners' application for grant of approval was wrongly rejected. In our opinion the Supreme Court case is clearly distinguishable on facts. 10. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance on a Supreme Court decision in State of U.P. and Another Vs. Raja Ram Jaiswal and Another, (1985) 3 SCC 131 . in support of his submission that the Petitioners' application for grant of approval was wrongly rejected. In our opinion the Supreme Court case is clearly distinguishable on facts. In the aforesaid case the certificate of aproval as envisaged by Rule 7(2)(b) of the Rules was granted on March 24, 1972 on the finding that Hindi Sahitya Sammelan was not an educational institution within the contemplation of Rule 7(2)(b). After the cinema building had been competed an application was made on May 25, 1975 for granting a licence u/s 3 of the U.P. Cinemas (Regulations) Act, 1955 This application was rejected. It was in these circumstances that the Supreme Court observed that while granting the certificate of approval the question whether a particular institution is an educational institution and is within or outside the prohibited distance is examined and a decision is reached that the institution is not educational institution within the contemplation of the relevant Rule nor it is within the prohibited distance, that aspect cannot be reviewed to refuse the grant of a licence u/s 3 read with Section 5 in the name of public interest. 'In the present case the Petitioner' application for grant of certificate of approval under Rule 3 itself has been rejected and the stage of grant a licence u/s 3 of the Act has not reached at all. 11. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners also placed reliance on the case of St. George High School v. State of U.P. 1970 ALJ 973. This decision is of no assistance to him as it relates to a period prior to amendment of Rule 7(2) of the Rules and does Hot concern the controversy now involved. 12. The writ petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.