Judgment : .1. This writ petition is filed by one Balraj petitioner herein praying to issue a writ of certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st Respondent in GO. Ms. No. 1695 Home (Cinema -1) Department dated 110. 1992 rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the second respondent in C.A. No. 162 of 1989 dated 8. 1991 upholding the order of the Collector of Tiruchirapalli in RC.D1/97128/88, dated 25. 1989 rejecting the petitioner’s request for the grant of a No Objection Certificate to locate a permanent theatre in S.F. No. 109/6 of Agaramsigoor Village in Perambalur Taluk, Tiruchirapalli District and to quash the said order of the first respondent in GO. Ms. No. 1695 Home (Cinema-I) Department dated 110. 1992. 2. In support of the writ petition one S. Renganathan the Manager of Sri A. Balraj has sworn to an affidavit in which he has stated that the petitioner was granted no objection certificate for locating a permanent cinema in S.F. No. 109/6 of Agaramsigoor village in Perambalur Taluk. Tiruchirapalli District in Collectors Proceedings RC.D. 1. 62231 of 1977 dated 16. 1978. Pursuant thereto the construction of the building in accordance with approved plans, was commenced and substantial work was made with the main walls coming upto about 12 feet height expending nearly Rs. 3,00,000. But due to an unfortunate calamity in the family and other unavoidable circumstances, the building could not be completed and the No Objection Certificate lapsed. 3. The petitioner therefore applied to the Collector of Tiruchirapalli on 16.09.1988 for the grant of fresh No Objection Certificate for the same site with the incomplete building standing thereon. 4. The Superintendent of Police stated that there is no objection for the grant of No Objection Certificate. The Commercial Tax authorities stated that the petitioner is not in arrears of tax and that, he has not been convicted for any offence under the Entertainment Tax Act. The Tahsildar after inspection reported that the site is in the lawful possession of the petitioner and satisfies all the requirements of the Rules. 5. The affidavit further reads that the fourth respondent herein, who is a trade rival running a Permanent Cinema called “Sri Varadharaja Palace” in the village objected to the grant on frivolous and untenable grounds. The Collector rejected the application submitted by the petitioner by his proceedings in RC.D1/97128/88 dated 25. 5. The affidavit further reads that the fourth respondent herein, who is a trade rival running a Permanent Cinema called “Sri Varadharaja Palace” in the village objected to the grant on frivolous and untenable grounds. The Collector rejected the application submitted by the petitioner by his proceedings in RC.D1/97128/88 dated 25. 1989 on the sole and erroneous ground that there is no scope for another cinema in the area. .6. Against the said order of the Collector, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Commissioner-1 of Land Administration, Madras, the second respondent herein. The second respondent has also rejected the said appeal and the revision preferred before the Government - first respondent did not give a good result in favour of the petitioner. Against the said orders, the present writ petition has been filed for the relief which has been mentioned earlier. 7. A number of grounds have been raised in the affidavit to set aside the orders passed by the respondents 1 to 3. 8. On behalf of the fourth respondent one V. Ramanathan, the licensee of Sri Varadharaja Palace has sworn to a counter affidavit. In the said counter affidavit he has denied all the allegations contained in the affidavit as well as amended affidavit except those that are specifically admitted herein. After narrating all the facts in detail which led to filing of this writ petition, the dependent has further stated that No Objection Certificate applied for by the petitioner for location of Permanent theatre at Agaramsigoor was considered by die authorities taking into consideration of the existing theatres as well as No Objection Certificate granted by the authorities within the radius of 8 km., within the radius of 8 k.m. there are about 40 villages coming both in Tiruchirapalli and South Arcot Vallalar Districts and the total population was only about 93.000. For this area of 8 k.m. and population of 93.000 at that time when he applied in tlie year 1989. there were five permanent theatres and another No Objection Certificate in favour of One Thangaraj who has now started the theatre in the name and style of Periyasamy Theatre. He has denied all tlie allegations that the provision was in existence of 1978 and the petitioner was granted No Objection Certificate. there were five permanent theatres and another No Objection Certificate in favour of One Thangaraj who has now started the theatre in the name and style of Periyasamy Theatre. He has denied all tlie allegations that the provision was in existence of 1978 and the petitioner was granted No Objection Certificate. After denying all the other allegations made by tlie petitioner, this respondent submitted that this writ petition has no merit and liable to be rejected. .9. I heard tlie learned Advocate Mr. N.C. Ramesh. for the petitioner, Mr. V.M.G. Varadharajan, Government Advocate for tlie respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. C. Selvaraju, learned counsel for the fourth respondent and perused the records. Eventhough number of grounds have been raised in the writ petition, tlie learned counsel for tlie petitioner submitted that tlie strongest point in his favour urged by him is found in ground -1 in tlie affidavit. He submitted that G.O. Ms. No. 2033 Home (Cinema-1) Department dated 19. 1988 which prescribed every 25.000 population one cinema, has not come into force and has not been amended. The G.O.Ms, specifically stated that tlie Government have decided tlie Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter called as “Tlie Act”) may be amended to make the provisions in the said rules for tlie grant of No Objection Certificate on population basis. Para 5 of the said G.O. Ms. also states that the Commissioner of Land Administration, Madras is requested to send necessary draft amendments to tlie Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules. 1957. But till now the rules have not been amended. Rule 14(1) states that “there shall be no restriction to the grant of licence to permanent and travelling cinemas on the basis of population in any place, except towns with a population of 50.000 and above in which no touring cinema will be allowed, if there are three or more permanent cinema.” 10. Elaborating this arguments, he submitted that when the petitioner submitted his application for No Objection Certificate on 9. 1988 the population was not a criterion for granting licence to permanent theatre. Elaborating this arguments, he submitted that when the petitioner submitted his application for No Objection Certificate on 9. 1988 the population was not a criterion for granting licence to permanent theatre. In this connection he has invited my attention to rule 14(1) which reads as follows :- “There shall be no restriction to the grant of licences to permanent and touring cinema on the basis of population in any place, except towns with a population of 50,000 and above in which no touring cinema will be allowed, if there are three or more permanent cinemas.” Tlie said rule was amended and came into force on 7. 1993. Tlie amended rules reads as follows :- “In the rule 14 for Sub-Rules (1) and (2) the following rules shall be substituted namely :-(1) there shall be no restriction to the grant of licence to permanent and travelling cinemas on the basis of population.” amended rule 14(l)(a) “In areas other than pilgrim towns, tourist centres, municipalities townships and municipal corporations, the adequacy of existing places for the exhibition of cinematograph films shall be decided on the basis of one theatre for a population of every 25.000. Explanation: “Area for this purpose would mean area within 8 kilometres radius from the proposed site for which No Objection Certificate is sought and the population of all the villages failling within that 8 kilometres radius shall be taken into account. (b) No touring cinema shall be allowed in towns with population of 50.000 and above if there are three or more permanent Cinemas.” 11. The learned advocate pointed out that he has filed an application for No Objection Certificate on 9. 1988 which was rejected on 25. 1989 and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 8. 1991. and the revision before the first respondent was rejected on 110. 1992. The amended rule 14(1) came into force only on 7. 1993. He also further brought to my notice the G.P. amending the said amending Rule 14( 1) which came into force on 9. 1995. The amended rules reads as follows :- “In Rule 14 for Sub-rules (1) and (2) the following rules shall be substituted namely :- “There shall be no restriction to the grant of licence to permanent and travelling cinemas on the basis of population.” 12. 1995. The amended rules reads as follows :- “In Rule 14 for Sub-rules (1) and (2) the following rules shall be substituted namely :- “There shall be no restriction to the grant of licence to permanent and travelling cinemas on the basis of population.” 12. Placing reliance on the rules, he submitted that even at the time of filing the application before the competent authority or even now the population of the locality was not a criterion and hence all the authorities i.e., respondents 1 to 3 have considered the application of the petitioner for grant of No Objection Certificate from the point of view of population. He submitted that on this ground alone this writ petition is entitled to be allowed. .13. He also pointed out that the authorities below were not justified in placing reliance on the guidelines found in G.O. Ms. No. 2033 dated 19. 1988 to consider the No Objection Certificate which has no statutory force. In this connection, he has invited my attention to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Tlie Licencee, Jayaram Touring v. Sudhakar and Others. AIR 1995 Mad. 357 . The Bench has observed as follows :- .“Further, tlie procedure that provide for framing of tlie Rules is to publish them in the gazette and also to place the before the legislature, within a particular period, so that the legislature, if chooses, can also propose amendments to those rules. Notification of the Rules in tlie Gazette has been made a condition precedent for coming into force of tlie rules. That being the position, it is not possible to hold that the G.O. Ms. No. 2033 dated 19. 1988 had the effect of the Rule framed under the Act. Moreover, the said Government Order itself did not intend that it should be construed as an enforceable direction or order, such could not have been tlie intention of the State Government also for the reason that by virtue of a provision like Section 5(4) of the Act, no directions, whether specific or general, could be issued to fetter the exercise of a quasi-judicial power by the Statutory Authority entrusted with tlie power of granting licences under tlie Act in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder ”. 14. 14. Placing reliance on this decision, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the respondent 1 to 3 were not justified in rejecting his application filed for No Objection Certificate. 15. On the other hand, the learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 4 took me through orders which have been passed by the respondents 1 to 3 and submitted that the said orders did not suffer from any legal infirmity and authorities were justified in considering the No objection certificate keeping in mind the guidelines laid down in GO. Ms. No. 2033 dated 19. 1988. population being the criterion for giving No Objection Certificate for the Cinema theatre. 16. Tlie learned Government advocate supported tlie contention of the fourth respondent and pointed out that the application for No Objection Certificate should be considered with reference to the rule which was in existence at the time of submitting the said application. He also supported orders passed by the authorities below. .17. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the orders of the authorities, 1 am of the opinion that the authorities below were not justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner for No Objection Certificate on the ground of population. When the application was filed in the year 1988, the rule 14( 1) did not refer to population in tlie case of permanent cinema theatre. Even when the revision petition was dismissed by the Government on 110. 1992. even the existing rule 14(1) was not amended. It was amended only on 7. 1993. Further again in the year 1995. when we are dealing with this matter the criterion of population has been removed. 18. Under these circumstances, the authorities were not justified in rejecting the No Objection Certificate applied by the petitioner. 19. For the reasons stated above. I allow this writ petition and set aside the orders passed by the authorities below and direct the third respondent to grant No Objection Certificate applied by the Petitioner within a period of two months from die date of receipt of copy of this order. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 15167 of 1995 does not survive and accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 15167 of 1995 does not survive and accordingly dismissed. **SCHEDULE 9(a) I respectfully, submit that at the time, when the petitioner made an application before the third respondent, there were two permanent theatre and 1 touring theatre : Name of the Cinema Nature of Cinema Village in which running 1. Varadharaja Palace 2. Sri Krishna Palace Permanent Cinema Thittakudi South Arcot District 3. Kalairaja Thirai Arangam Touring Cinema Olaipadi. Trichy District In the impugned order dated 25. 1989 passed by the third respondent, the above fact has been mentioned. In addition to this, in the impugned order, the 3rd respondent has made a reference to another No Objection Certificate having been given to one Thangaraj Mudaliar by the Collector of South Arcot District to locate a permanent Cinema in S.F.No. 67/1 of Thittakudi Village, vide his proceedings No. R.Dis. 179508 of 1988 dated 23. 1989. After referring to this, the third respondent in his order has stated that the population in the villages is about 92.684 and this includes the population of the villages that lie within the South Arcot District and Trichy District. The break up details of the population in Trichy and South Arcot Districts as given in the impugned order is as follows : Name of the District Villages Population Tiruchirapalli 12 50445 South Arcot 28 42239 Total 40 92684 In the impugned order passed by the third respondent, it has been stated after making reference to the Varadharaja palace and Kalairaja Thirai Arangam that two cinemas are running and that there is no need for another Cinema and because of mat the application made by the petitioner is rejected. It will not be out of place, if it is mentioned here that the third respondent had passed the impugned order dated 25. 1989, two months after the passing of the order by the Collector of South Arcot on 23. 1989. granting permission to Mr. Thangaraj Mudaliar. No explanation has been given in the impugned order as to why the petitioner’s application has not been allowed, even though the petitioner has made an application as early as on 9. 1988. whereas the said Thangaraj Mudaliar had made an application for the grant of No Objection Certificate only on 112. 1988. 1989. granting permission to Mr. Thangaraj Mudaliar. No explanation has been given in the impugned order as to why the petitioner’s application has not been allowed, even though the petitioner has made an application as early as on 9. 1988. whereas the said Thangaraj Mudaliar had made an application for the grant of No Objection Certificate only on 112. 1988. Therefore, there is no justification whatsoever for the Collector of South Arcot to grant a No Objection Certificate in favour of the said Thangaraj Mudaliar on 23. 1989 and the 3rd respondent to reject my application two months later by passing the impugned order on 25. 1989. When it comes to the question of taking into account the total population, the impugned order has taken into account, the population of both districts, namely. South Arcot and Trichy Districts. When such being the case, the application made by the petitioner should have been automatically granted. On the other hand, even though the petitioner’s application is earlier than that of the said Thangaraj Mudaliar’s application, no reason has been stated as to why the petitioner’s application has not been considered favourably and whereas the said Thangaraj Mudaliar’s application has been granted. This clearly shows that the 3rd respondent has not properly applied his mind to the facts of the case. The third respondent could have confined himself to the population situated in Trichy District. Having taken into account the population of South Arcot and Trichy Districts, ought to have granted No Objection Certificate in favour of the petitioner, especially when the Collector of South Arcot District has granted a No Objection Certificate in favour of Thangaraj Mudaliar. This clearly shows that there has been no coordination between both the Collectors, namely, the Collector of Trichy and the Collector of South Arcot. Nothing more is needed to show that the impugned order has been passed, without application of mind, without any justification whatsoever and ex- facie illegal. 9(b) I respectfully submit that the subsequent facts which had came to the knowledge of the petitioner, after filing of the above writ petition is that, the Kalai Raja Thirai Arangam. which was a touring cinema for which a license was granted, which was being run in the Hamlet of Olaipadi at Trichy District, has since been closed, on 110. 1991. which was a touring cinema for which a license was granted, which was being run in the Hamlet of Olaipadi at Trichy District, has since been closed, on 110. 1991. Therefore, the petitioner is automatically entitled for No Objection Certificate because even as per the impugned order passed by the third respondent, the total population in Tnchy District even as on 25. 1989 was 50445. As on today, the 4th respondent theatre is alone running in Agaramsigoor Village. Trichy District thereby creating a monopoly in his favour. Having regard to the fact that the touring cinema is no longer functioning and having regard to the population in Trichy District is above 50.000 the petitioner as on today is entitled for a grant of No Objection Certificate in his favour. 9(c) 1 respectfully submit that the first respondent while disposing off the revision in Paragraph 3 has stated that from the report of the third respondent there are 4 theatres are functioning now and one No Objection Certificate alive within the radius of 8 kms., from the site in question and that 5 licensees are in force. It is further stated that besides, two more No Objection Certificates are in force slightly beyond the radius of 8 kms. This observation made by the first respondent is erroneous because as already stated on the date, when the petitioner made his application only three theatres were in existence and the fact that subsequently licenses have been granted in favour of some third parties without giving no objection certificate in petitioner’s favour cannot be a ground for rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for grant of No Objection Certificate. The third respondent and the Collector of South Arcot Districts having thought it fit to give No Objection Certificate for 5 theatres, the first respondent ought not to have rejected application made by the petitioner because the respondents 1 to 3 could not have granted any No Objection Certificate to any third parties unless and until the required population is in existence. This clearly shows that as on the date, when the petitioner made the application, the expected population was available and the Respondents 1 to 3 erred in rejecting the No Objection Certificate applied for by the petitioner. Hence, nothing more is needed to show that there has been a clear non-application of mind on the part of the Respondents 1 to 3. Hence, nothing more is needed to show that there has been a clear non-application of mind on the part of the Respondents 1 to 3. especially on the part of the first respondent and this vitiates the impugned orders passed by the Respondents 1 to 3.