Petitioner holds a licence for exhibiting cinematograph film in the town of Soraon, district Allahabad. The place where the petitioner exhibited cinematograph firm is known as Urvashi Cinema. 2. The petitioner under proviso to Section 3 of U. P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) opted for compounded payment of entertainment tax and the same was accepted by the authorities concerned and petitioner continued to deposit entertainment tax on the basis of option so exercised. The said option exercised by the petitioner is coming to an end on 31st March, 1993. Before that the peti tioner against exercised the option for compounded payment of entertainment tax for the year commencing from 1-4-1995 to 31-3-1996 and submitted the said option in Form r prescribed under the Rules, In the said return, the petitioner has reduced the 1st class seats in the cinema hall from 332 to 270. On the basis of reduced seats, the petitioner alleged to have requested the authorities concerned to accept his option for compounded payment of entertainment tax. It is alleged that the respondents did not consider the option exercised by the petitioner for compounded payment of tax and as such he filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The prayer in the petition is that a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued directing respondent No. 1 District Magistrate to permit him to deposit the entertainment tax on compounded basis as indicated in Form S for the financial year 1995-96 and further for issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to reduce the number of seats. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner referred to proviso to Section 3 of the Act and Rule 34-A (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) of the Entertainment and Betting Tax Rules (hereinafter referred to the Rules; and on the strength of these rules it was argued that it is open to licensee to unilaterally reduced the number of seats in the picture hall and the District Magistrate has to accept option to pay the compounded payment of entertainment tax on the number of reduced seats. Learned counsel has further relied upon to unreported decisions of this Court. One in the case of Agarwal v. State of U. P. , in Civil Misc. Learned counsel has further relied upon to unreported decisions of this Court. One in the case of Agarwal v. State of U. P. , in Civil Misc. Writ No. 834 of 1993, decided on 12th April, 1994 and Second in the case of Smt. Kaushalya Devi State of U. P. , in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 269 of 1994, decided on 22nd April, 1994. 4. After we have heard counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, we do not find merit in the contention advanced on behalf of petitioner. Proviso to Section 3 runs as under : "provided that a proprietor of a cinema in a local area having a population not exceeding one lac, may in lieu of payment under this sub-section pay a compounded payment to the State Govern ment on such conditions and in such manner as may be prescribed and at such rate as the State Government may from time to time notify, and different rates of compounded payments may be notified for different categories of local areas. Rule 24-A delaying with the compounded payment of tax reads as under :- "rule 24-A. (1) The proprietor of a cinema opting to make com pounded payment of entertainment tax under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act shall submit his written option in duplicate to the District Magistrate before the last date fixed by the Commissioner in this behalf in Form r appended to these rules declaring the total number of shows to be exhibited in a day, number of seats in the cinema classwise and the rates of tickets at full price and on reduced price if any. (2) The option once exercised shall be valid for the period of a financial year. (3) (1) The District Magistrate shall within a week of the receipt of the application, communicate to the proprietor the gross collection capacity and the weekly tax payable by the cinema in Form *s. (ii) The gross collection capacity shall be calculated by multiplying the number of seats in various classes in a cinema by the respective current ticket rates (including payment for admission and entertainment tax thereon) and multiplying the sum so derived by such number of shows as the proprietor of the cinema declares to give in a day. (4) The proprietor shall strictly adhere to the declaration under sub-rule (1) and shall obtain permission of District Magistrate before effecting any change in the number of seats, the ticket rate and the number of shows. The licensing authority shall have the power to revise the compounded amount of tax upwards if the gross collection capacity increases as a result of such permitted change. (5) The proprietor of a cinema opting for compounded payment of tax shall inform the District Magistrate at least three days in advance if he proposes to hold any show at reduced price of ticket. The District Magistrate shall cause all such shows to be inspected and rates verified. 5. A perusal of proviso to Section 3 shows that a proprietor of a cinema in a local area having a population not exceeding one lac is entitled to opt to pay compounded payment of entertainment tax to the Stale Gov ernment for the financial period. 6. Rule 24-A (a) provides that a proprietor of a cinema while opting to deposit the compounded payment of entertainment tax shall submit his written option in duplicate to the District Magistrate before the last date fixed by the Commissioner in this behalf in Form r appended to those rules declaring therein the total number of shows to the exhibited in a day, number of seats in the cinema, class-wise and the rates of tickets at full price and on reduced price if any. 7. Sub-rule 2 of Rule 24-A further provides that the option once exercised shall be valid for the period of a financial year. 8. Sub-rule 3 (ii) of Rule 24-A again provides that the gross collection capacity shall be calculated by multiplying the number of seats in various classes in a cinema by the respective current ticket rates (including payment for admission and entertainment tax thereon) and multiplying the sum so derived by such number of shows, as the proprietor of the cinema declares to give in a day. 9. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 24-A thereafter provides that the proprietor shall strictly adhere to the declaration under sub-rule (1) and shall obtain permission of District Magistrate before effacing any change in the number of seats, the ticket rate and the number of shows. 10. 9. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 24-A thereafter provides that the proprietor shall strictly adhere to the declaration under sub-rule (1) and shall obtain permission of District Magistrate before effacing any change in the number of seats, the ticket rate and the number of shows. 10. Lastly sub-rule (5) of Rule 24-A lays down that the proprietor of a cinema opting for compounded payment of tax shall inform the District Magistrate at least three days in advance if he proposes to hold any show at reduced price of ticket. The District Magistrate shall cause all such shows to be inspected and rates verified. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that sub-rule (4) of Rule 24-A provides the right of licensee to reduce the number of seats while exercising option for compounded payment of entertainment tax. It is according to us is not a correct interpretation of sub-rule (4) of Rule 24-A. Sub- rule (4) has to be read along with explanation to sub-rule i3) (ii) of Rule 24-A. The explanation of sub-rule (3) (ii) of Rule 24-A runs as under : "for purpose of this sub-rule the number of seats in various classes in a cinema means the maximum permissible number of seats in various classes mentioned in the licence thereof and shall include any increase in the maximum number of seats by an amendment allowed by the Licensing Authority. " 12. The explanation to sub-rule (3) Hi) of Rule 24-A explains the number of seats which require to be Indicated in Form S to be submitted by the licensee while exercising above for compounded payment of entertain ment tax. The explanation further explains the object In clear terms that number of seats cannot be reduced other than what has been indicated in the licence issued by the Licensing Authority or which corresponds to the licence issued to the licensee. 13. In our view the Authority cannot permit the amendment in the licence by reducing the number of seats nor the licensee can unilaterally educe the maximum number of seats in his Cinema Hall while passing orders on application for compounded payment of entertainment tax. 14. In the present case, there has been no reduction of seats in the licence issued to the petitioner. 14. In the present case, there has been no reduction of seats in the licence issued to the petitioner. It has not been averred in petition that the Licensing Authority has reduced the number of seats in the licence issued to the petitioner or made any such change in the terms of licence. Under such circumstances it is not open to the petitioner to claim reduction of seats for the purpose of compounded payment of entertainment tax. The decision of this Court in the case of Pradeep Agarwal v. State of U. P. , (supra) is not applicable to the present facts in the case. The said case relates to change in number of shows in a day in the licence. The decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalaya Devi v. State of U. P. , also is of no assistance. In this case the Licensing Authority already permitted the petitioner to reduce the number of seats. 15. In view of what has been stated above, we find no merit in the petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed. 16. However, it is open to the petitioner to apply to the Licensing Authority for change in terms and conditions of licence, if any permissible. Petition dismissed. .