Judgment :- K.A. Swami, C.J. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 310. 1994 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.18441 of 1994. 2. The petitioner who holds a touring cinema licence, has sought for striking down subclause (2) of the Rule 109 of Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) as unreasonable and violative of Arts. 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 3. Learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition holding that the said rule cannot at all be held to be either opposed to Art.14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Learned single Judge has also further held that the licence itself is a concession. While granting the concession, it is open to the Rule-making authority to extend the period of licence and also impose such other conditions as are necessary. 4. It is contended before us that having regard to the advancement in cinematography and other technical advancements connected thereto, touring cinema theatre is not in any way inferior to permanent cinema theatre and it is also required to provide all the amenities to the viewers more or less akin to the permanent theatre, therefore, neither any purpose is served, nor the object of the Rules is in any way advanced by imposing a condition that at the end of 5th year, there should be a gap of 3 months for granting the licence to the same licensee to operate the touring cinema on the same site. 5. It is not possible to appreciate this contention. There is a subtle and indisputable distinction between a permanent theatre and a touring cinema. In the very nature of construction that is required to be made for a permanent cinema theatre and a touring cinema, there is a vast difference. The nature of construction is not similar to both the theatres. If there is not going to be any break after a period of 5 years, it ceases to be a touring cinema and it becomes a permanent cinema theatre. It is also not possible to appreciate how such a condition will in any way undermine the object of the Rules. If there is not going to be any break after a period of 5 years, it ceases to be a touring cinema and it becomes a permanent cinema theatre. It is also not possible to appreciate how such a condition will in any way undermine the object of the Rules. As long as the distinction between a touring cinema and a permanent theatre continues, the conditions prescribed for granting licence for running a touring cinema that after a period of 5 years there should be a break of 3 months, cannot be held to be unreasonable. It is also not possible to hold that such a condition in any way affects the fundamental right of the petitioner guaranteed under Art.l9(l)(g) of the Constitution. Such a condition is reasonable and as such, the same cannot at all be held to be unconstitutional. 6. For the reasons stated above, the writ appeal is rejected. The C.M.P. is also rejected.