H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition, the petitioner has sought the relief of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 6-6-1988 contained in annexure-A to the writ petition and passed by the District magistrate, Shimoga District-respondent 2 to the writ petition as well as quashing of the appellate order dated 30-11-1988, passed in Cinema Appeal No. 18 of 1988, dismissing the petitioner's appeal and affirming the order of the District magistrate/licensing authority, rejecting the No Objection certificate under Rule 27 of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971. The petitioner has further sought the directions to be issued to the authorities to grant No Objection certificate for construction of permanent cinema on the site measuring 150" x 140" situated adjacent to Chitradurga Bhadravathi road, as sought by the petitioner in his application moved before respondent 1. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner moved an application for permission to construct a building for use as place for exhibiting cinemas and for No Objection Certificate vide, Rule 25 of the Rules contained in Chapter 4 of the karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971. The objections were called for by the licensing authority by publishing the notice as required under Rule 26 of the Rules. In pursuance thereof, the respondents filed objections. It may be mentioned here that while issuing notice calling for the objections, the licensing authority forwarded the copies of the applications to the Director of Town Planning, Bangalore, Director of Health and Family Planning, Bangalore, Executive Engineer, P. W. D. , shimoga and to Superintendent of Police, Shimoga. As mentioned earlier objections in response to the notice have been filed and one of the objections taken therein has been to the effect that in front of the proposed site and hereby there are educational institutions, namely Government Higher Primary school, Government Girls' High School, Primary School and urdu School. It was alleged in the objections that if Cinema theatre was allowed to be constructed, the same is likely to cause disturbance in functioning of the school and the educational institutions and the same may have the effect of adversely affecting the interest, the attentive mind and morale of the students. It was alleged in the objections that if Cinema theatre was allowed to be constructed, the same is likely to cause disturbance in functioning of the school and the educational institutions and the same may have the effect of adversely affecting the interest, the attentive mind and morale of the students. The Director of Town Planning, Bangalore in response to the notice issued under Rule 26 informed the authority that the school buildings were situated within a diameter of 50 metres from the proposed site and as such the proposed cinema site is and has not been in conformity with the requirements of rule 27 of the Cinema Rules, 1971. The other authorities namely, Director of Health and Family Welfare, Bangalore, the executive Engineer, PWD, Shimoga and the Superintendent of police, Shimoga and Channagiri Town Municipality informed the licensing authority that they have no objection to the grant of No Objection Certificate to the petitioner. ( 3 ) AS appears from the order of the District Magistrate, the licensing authority Shimoga District, Magistrate, in order to have the correct idea of the position, on the spot conducted the inspection on 12-4-1988. The licensing authority after hearing the counsel for the petitioner as well as others, before whom, as appears from the order, a request had been made for relaxation of the restrictions as contained in Rule 27 (1) (i) (a) (iii) of the rules, considered the matter and ordered as under:"i do not agree with the contention put forth by the appellants counsel. The proposed site is situated in such a place that the interest of School going children will be affected. The sound produced by the cinema hall is not the main distraction for the children; the very existence of the cinema hall at the entrance of the school is a source of disturbance and distraction for school going children. The proposed site is not inconformity with Rule 27 (1) (i) (a) (iii) of karnataka Cinemas Regulation Rules, 1971. If N. O. C. is issued, it will disturb the functioning of educational institution and the students". Thus considering the matter the District Magistrate, shimoga, i. e. , the licensing authority, rejected the petitioner's application for the grant of N. O. C. , for construction of a permanent cinema building, vide, Annexure-A to the writ petition, i. e. , by the order dated 6th June, 1988. Thus considering the matter the District Magistrate, shimoga, i. e. , the licensing authority, rejected the petitioner's application for the grant of N. O. C. , for construction of a permanent cinema building, vide, Annexure-A to the writ petition, i. e. , by the order dated 6th June, 1988. ( 4 ) THAT having felt aggrieved from the order of the licensing authority dated 6-6-1988, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 10 of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulations) Act, 1964. The Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore Division, heard the arguments and considered the matter in detail and dismissed the appellant's appeal and affirmed the order passed by the licensing authority/district Magistrate, whereby No Objection certificate had been rejected. The copy of the order has been annexed as Annexure-B to this writ petition. No counter affidavit has been filed to this writ petition. ( 5 ) I have heard petitioner's counsel Sri S. Krishnaiah assisted by Smt. Sheela Krishna and on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 appearance has been put by Sri N. Devadas the learned government Advocate. Respondent 3 has been served. He has not put in appearance nor he has appointed any counsel. As regards respondents 4 to 19, a note has been mentioned in the petition that since the said respondents remained ex parte before the Commissioner, no notice need be sent to respondents 4 to 19. ( 6 ) ON behalf of the petitioner it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner namely Sri S. Krishnaiah that in the public interest No Objection Certificate should have been granted, particularly when the petitioner had mentioned it and filed an application before the authority to the effect, that they propose to construct a sound-proof cinema building. Sri krishnaiah further submitted that under the proviso to Rule 27 (l) (i) of the Rules, the discretionary power has been conferred on the licensing authority to grant relaxation in writing, from all or any of the conditions specified in items (a) (i) to (vi) of Rule 27 (1) (i) of the Cinema Rules. Sri Krishnaiah submitted that the licensing authority really failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by not granting the relaxation inspite of the fact that the petitioner had submitted a proposal to construct a sound-proof cinema building. Sri Krishnaiah submitted that the licensing authority really failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by not granting the relaxation inspite of the fact that the petitioner had submitted a proposal to construct a sound-proof cinema building. He submitted that the condition should have been relaxed by the authority, subject to imposition of certain other conditions, as he would have thought fit and this would have been in the public interest. He further submitted that the school site and the cinema site are across the road and in between as there is a wide road so the No Objection certificate should have been granted. There is no cinema building within a radius of 20 Kms. and therefore it is, in the public interest, that the licensing authority should have granted the No Objection Certificate and in not doing so, the authority concerned erred in law and acted illegally or in other words failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested. He further submitted that the licensing authority did not apply his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 7 ) ON behalf of respondents 1 and 2 the contention of the petitioner has been challenged and refuted strongly by the learned Government Advocate Sri Devadas. Sri Devadas submitted that under Rule 27, sub-rule (1) it is provided that No objection Certificate has not to be granted under this Chapter unless requisites of Rule 27 are satisfied. Sri Devadas elaborating his submissions submitted that as per Rule 27 (l) (i), clause (a) thereof, No Objection Certificate in respect of any cinema is not to be granted, if cinema site is at a distance of less than 50 metres from the things or institutions mentioned in clause (a) of 27 (1) (i) of the Cinema Rules. In the present case the matter relates to educational institutions and the rule is to be read like that; that if a cinema site is at a distance of less than 50 metres from any recognised educational institution or any residential institution attached to such educational institutions or to any institution mentioned in the clause, No Objection certificate is not to be granted. The learned Government advocate further submitted that no doubt the licensing authority has been given discretion to grant certain relaxation from the conditions, but the first condition precedent is that there is a proposal to construct the sound-proof building and then other conditions mentioned are to be taken into consideration while exercising discretion is the location suitability of the place from other angles and the public interest. The learned Government Advocate submitted that therefore, the fact that there was a proposal from the applicant that he will construct a sound-proof cinema house, is not the only factor to be taken into consideration. He submitted that the licensing authority did apply its mind to the facts and question and thereafter passed the order refusing to grant N. O. C. , on a consideration of material facts appearing before him and as such the learned Government Advocate submitted that the authorities - respondents 1 and 2 did not commit any error and did act within the jurisdiction in passing the order impugned. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that education of the children and building up their morale and character is an important factor and as such if the District magistrate took these objections into consideration in the matter of constructing the cinema building and passed the order refusing to grant any No Objection Certificate, the order did not suffer from any error of law apparent or illegality and the petition as such is liable to be dismissed. ( 8 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate. Before I proceed to examine the matter, I think it proper to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. The material provision in this regard is contained in Section 11 of the Act. Section 11 of the Act reads as under:"11. Before I proceed to examine the matter, I think it proper to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. The material provision in this regard is contained in Section 11 of the Act. Section 11 of the Act reads as under:"11. Construction or reconstruction of buildings or use of places for exhibition of cinematograph films only to be made after obtaining permission of licensing authority: (1) Any person who intends: (a) to use any place for the exhibition of cinematograph films; or (b) to use any site for constructing a building thereon for the exhibition of cinematograph films; or (c) to construct or reconstruct any building for such exhibition; or (d) to instal any machinery in any place where cinematograph exhibitions are proposed to be given; shall make an application in writing to the licensing authority for permission thereof, together with such particulars as may be prescribed. (2) No provision contained in the enactments specified in the Schedule or any other law for the time being in force regulating the erection or construction of buildings, or in the rules or bye-laws made under any such enactment or law shall apply to an application under sub-section (1) insofar as such provision relates to any of the matters specified in the said sub-section. (3) The licensing authority shall, thereupon after consulting such authority or officer as may be prescribed, grant or refuse permission and the provisions of Section 6, section 8 and Section 10 relating to licences shall, so far as may be, apply to permission under this section". ( 9 ) A perusal of sub-section (3) per se shows that the licensing authority has to consult such other authorities and officers as may be prescribed by the rules before granting or refusing permission, as well as it is provided thereunder that the provisions of Sections 6, 8 and 10 relating to licence may be applied to the permission under this section. As regards the question of approval of location of permanent cinema rules are contained in Chapter IV and Rules 25 to 29 of the Rules deal with the matter of approval of location of permanent cinema site and cinema buildings and Chapter V which contains Rules 30 to 33, deals with the matter of approval of plan of the building and thereafter there are other rules dealing with approval of building for construction and issue of licence. ( 10 ) FOR the purpose of the case, Rules 25 to 30 may be relevant. Rule 25 makes provision for moving of application for construction of permanent cinema building and sub-rule (6) of rule 25 provides that the licensing authority shall consult the local authority, the police authority and the Director, Town planning, before granting permission for an additional cinema in an existing cinema premises. Rule 26 of the Rules, provides that the licensing authority shall issue notice calling for objections to the application made under Rule 25. Rule 27 prescribes the conditions in which No Objection Certificate may be granted. This rule is in negative form. Rule 27 (1) provides that No objection Certificate shall not be granted under this chapter in respect of any cinema, unless, vide, clause (i) the cinema site is at a distance of not less than 50 metres from the building or place referred to therein, including the recognised educational institutions or the residential institution attached to the said educational institutions. This being the position of law, under rule 27 (l) (i) with reference to educational institutions that No objection Certificate is not to be granted if the cinema site is at a distance of not less than 50 metres from the recognised educational institutions or residential institutions attached to educational institutions. Ordinarily as a mandatory rule, it is not open to the licensing authority to issue N. O. C. , in case it has found that the cinema site is at a distance of less than 50 metres from the educational institution. The rule appears to be very reasonable and it is well within public interest to save the tender minds of the school going children from being disturbed or polluted by the very existence of cinema or by the exhibition of cinema posters on the walls of the cinema theatre if they are in front thereof or within the radius prescribed. ( 11 ) IN this case, the authority has found that the proposed cinema theatre site is located beside the main road connecting shimoga-Chitradurga. On the other side of the road opposite to the proposed cinema theatre there are two school buildings, namely, Government Higher Primary Boys' School at a distance of about 100 feet and the Government Girls' High School at a distance of about 125 feet. On the other side of the road opposite to the proposed cinema theatre there are two school buildings, namely, Government Higher Primary Boys' School at a distance of about 100 feet and the Government Girls' High School at a distance of about 125 feet. Therefore, ordinarily there was no authority with the licensing authority to grant No Objection certificate in such a situation unless and until it found a case covered by the proviso. No doubt the order of the original authority indicates that no application for relaxation was made but a request was made for granting relaxation of the restriction from this position. Proviso to Rule 27 (l) (i) reads as under:"provides that the licensing authority may, if the proposal is to construct a sound-proof cinema building, at its discretion, in public interest, considering the suitability of the place for reasons to be recorded in writing after inspection of the proposed site, relax, subject to such conditions as it may consider necessary to impose in each case all or any of the conditions specified in items (i) to (vi)". ( 12 ) A perusal of this proviso indicates that in cases where a proposal is forwarded to the licensing authority to the effect that proposed cinema building to be constructed is to be a sound-proof cinema building, it is open to the licensing authority and it lies within its discretion to grant relaxation, subject to conditions it may think necessary. But there are certain restrictions on the exercise of this power. The first condition is no doubt the existence of proposal to construct sound-proof cinema building. If there is no such proposal, there will be no discretion in the authority to consider or to grant any relaxation, but it does not mean that if there is a proposal for construction of a sound-proof cinema building, the District Magistrate/licensing Authority is always bound to grant relaxation, as the proviso provides that discretion can be exercised in public interest and considering the suitability of the place as well, i. e. , suitability of the place in the context of public interest has got to be considered and then if authority after applying those considerations thinks fit to grant relaxation, it may grant, but the authority is further required to record its reasons including the material facts in the context of which it thinks it proper to grant relaxation. These are the conditions subject to which the discretion is conferred. ( 13 ) PUBLIC interest is a term of wide connotation and the suitability of the place has got to be taken into consideration in the context of public interest and for that purpose before passing order, recording the order, the licensing authority is required before it forms an opinion, to make local inspection of the proposed site. In the present case as appears from the order of the licensing authority, the licensing authority did make the local inspection of the spot as appears from the observations made at page 12 of the paper book i. e. , in page 3 of Annexure-A to know the correct position, on the spot. Inspection was conducted by the licensing authority on 12-4-1988. Before taking the view, after inspection the authority again applied its mind to the question of education of the children boys and girls as well and it has opined that though cinema building may be sound-proof, the sound produced by the cinema hall is not the main cause of disturbance and distraction to the school going children, but the very existence of cinema hall at the entrance of the school is a main source of disturbance and distraction. The authority realised that 'existence of cinema building in the context of its location i. e. , it being in front of the schools, it will always remain subject of causing disturbance and distraction to the mind of the students and their studies. One may differ from the opinion of the authority, although one thing is to be taken note of that children are the future of the nation. The future of the nation depends upon the character, the learning and the way of life in which its citizens are brought up. Nation lost its independence when we forgot the lessons of unity and integrity of nation and the national ethics and culture. The education as well as study of culture and history of a nation is very important factor and in order to develop such ethics and humanism the study and learning is necessary. Nation lost its independence when we forgot the lessons of unity and integrity of nation and the national ethics and culture. The education as well as study of culture and history of a nation is very important factor and in order to develop such ethics and humanism the study and learning is necessary. It is beyond doubt that factors which have tendency to cause disturbance or distraction from essential goal of education and tendency to pollute the mind and character of the young children or which cause deviation from the main goal should be removed and it is the duty as well of the government and authorities that an attempt should be made by them to avoid and remove those causes and factors. So if District magistrate considers that in order to save the mind of the children going to (boys and girls) school and in order to avoid them from being disturbed and distracted, it is necessary that cinema places should be kept away at the proper distance provided by the rules and no relaxation should be granted and no Objection Certificate should be rejected in such circumstances. In my opinion the District Magistrate did not commit any error either of law or of fact. Secondly power is given to him to apply mind and come to a conclusion. If authority has been given to a person to arrive at a conclusion, after consideration of the circumstances, even if for a moment it be taken that there is some error in appreciation and in coming to the conclusion, the error cannot be said to be error of jurisdiction, if the material factors have been considered, as it has been done in this case. When mind has been applied to those circumstances, when power is given to the authority to consider that matter and arrive at a decision, it is to be assumed that at times incorrect decision may also be arrived at but that simple erroneous decision cannot be termed to be one suffering from error of jurisdiction to attract the exercise of jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution nor a simple error (not being an error of law apparent on record) can be provided a ground for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. I do not find there is any error of law, apparent on the face of record, nor any has been pointed out. Error apparent on the face of record means, an error which is apparent on the record itself and there cannot be two possible views on that. If in order to point out an error lengthy arguments have to be advanced and there is always possibility of two views. Error cannot be said to be the error apparent as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of m/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v The Government of andhra Pradesh. In paragraph 11 of the judgment, Their lordships have laid down as under:"we do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out". ( 14 ) THE jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is confined primarily to the questions of error of jurisdiction or error of law apparent on the face of record. The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not the same thing as jurisdiction of a first Appellate Court. It is confined to the cases where there is a jurisdictional error or there is error of law apparent on the face of record or that orders impugned sought to be challenged is shown to have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. ( 15 ) IN the present case no such thing has been pointed out. Having thus considered, I am of the opinion that the present writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. It is hereby dismissed. --- *** --- .