JUDGMENT This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated February 25, 1998 passed by the Commissioner, Presidency, Division in Appeal Case No. 48 of 1997-98 under Section 5(4)(a) of the West Bengal Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1954 thereby, affirming order dated September 9, 1997 passed by the District Magistrate, Murshidabad granting permission to construct a permanent cinema hall over the disputed property. 2. The proceeding has a chequered career. The respondent Nos. 3 to 5 prayed for construction of a permanent cinema hall on the disputed plot against which the local people including the petitioner raised objection. Initially, the District Magistrate by order dated June 1, 1988 refused to grant permission to construct a cinema hall on the ground that the said site is only at a distance of 1/4th km. from an existing school and at a short distance from religious institution and about one km. away from the hospital. It was further held that there was some doubt about the title of the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 over the disputed land. Subsequently, as it appears from Annexure "B", the District Magistrate by his order dated December 19, 1989 granted permission to construct a permanent cinema hall as per approved plan under the supervision of a qualified engineer within 12 months. In the said order, the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were directed to obtain no objection certificate from Director, W.B.F.S. in the meantime. 3. Being dissatisfied, the son of the present petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Presidency Division, and the Commissioner by order dated August 29, 1991 set aside the order of the District Magistrate on the ground that the said order contradicted earlier order and no reason was given in support of such decision. 4. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by the Commissioner, Presidency Division, the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 preferred a writ application before this Court which was ultimately, disposed of by B.M. Mitra, J. on October 15, 1996 thereby directing the District Magistrate to consider the representation made by the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 hereinafter rehearing the parties by a reasoned order within a specified period. 5. 3 to 5 preferred a writ application before this Court which was ultimately, disposed of by B.M. Mitra, J. on October 15, 1996 thereby directing the District Magistrate to consider the representation made by the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 hereinafter rehearing the parties by a reasoned order within a specified period. 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction gives by B.M. Mitra, J., the District Magistrate by order dated September 9, 1997 held that the disputed plot was fit for granting licence for construction of a permanent cinema hall and there was no institution, temple, mosque etc., within a short distance from the proposed site and that another permanent cinema hall viz. "Zamman Talkies" is situated far from the proposed place. The District Magistrate further found that from the traffic point of view, the site of the proposed hall was suitable and thus allowed the prayer of the respondent Nos. 3 to 5. 6. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by the District Magistrate, the present petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 5(4)(a) of the West Bengal Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1954 before the Commissioner, Presidency Division and by the order impugned in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Commissioner has affirmed the order passed by the District Magistrate. 7. At the time of hearing of this application the added respondents were permitted to intervene as per liberty given by Samaresh Banerjea, J., in W.P. No. 10589(W) of 1978 dated July 29, 1998 and the learned Advocate for the petitioner was directed to serve a copy of this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India upon the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of such added respondents. Although no formal order regarding addition of such parties was passed, the said learned Advocate viz., Milan Kumar Maity was heard at the time of hearing. Mr. Maity supported the case of the petitioner and adopted the argument advanced by Mr. Milan Kumar Bhattacharya. 8. Mr. Bhattacharya, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that in the past the District Magistrate having specifically found that a school was situated within 1/4th km. Mr. Maity supported the case of the petitioner and adopted the argument advanced by Mr. Milan Kumar Bhattacharya. 8. Mr. Bhattacharya, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that in the past the District Magistrate having specifically found that a school was situated within 1/4th km. from the disputed site and a hospital was situated within one km and consequently having refused permission, the succeeding District Magistrate acted illegally and with material irregularity in holding that there is no school, hospital or religious place within a short distance from the disputed site. According to Mr. Bhattacharya, it is nobody’s case that those hospital, religious institution or school have been removed from the existing places. 9. Mr. Bhattacharya further contends that the appellate authority viz., the Commissioner, Presidency Division also acted illegally and with material irregularity in approving the decision of the District Magistrate, Mr. Bhattacharya submits that in view of the aforesaid materials, no reasonable man should grant permission to construct a cinema hall in such a locality. 10. Mr. Bhattacharya by relying upon the following decision contends that this is a fit case where I should exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and set aside the orders passed by the authorities below :- (1) L.C. Kumar v. Union of India, 1997 (1) CHN (SC) page 73; (2) Bala India Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, 1996 (1) CLT page 97; (3) Chandravarkar v. Ashalata, AIR 1987 SC page 117. 11. Mr. Bhattacharya further contends that under the West Bengal Cinemas (Regulation) Act there is no provision for review and as such the District Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in reviewing the earlier order passed by his predecessor. In support of such contention Mr. Bhattacharya relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of (4) Patel Narshi v. Prodyumna Singhji reported in AIR 1970 SC page 1273. 12. Mr. Chatterjee, the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 has on the other hand supported the orders passed by the authorities below and has contended that both the authorities below on consideration of the materials-on-record having concurrently found that it is a fit case where license would be granted to his client his, Court should not interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. As indicated earlier, Mr. 13. As indicated earlier, Mr. Maity, the learned Advocate appearing for the added respondents has adopted the argument of Mr. Bhattacharya. 14. There is no dispute that in the past the District Magistrate refused to grant permission to construct a cinema hall at the disputed site on the ground that the same is 1/4th km. away from the school and one km. from a hospital. Mr. Bhattacharya could not produce any rules showing that then is say bar of granting licence to construct cinema hall within a distance of one km. from hospital or 1/4th km. from an educational institution. 15. In view of the fact that there is no such restriction imposed by the West Bengal Cinemas (Regulation) Act or Rules framed under such Act, it is for the appropriate authorities to consider whether the situation of the educational institution, religious place or hospital are within a reasonable distance from the proposed site. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this connection and each case depends upon the facts and circumstances of such case. I am, however, unable to accept the contention of Mr. Bhattacharya that no cinema hall should be permitted to be constructed within one km. from a hospital or 1/4th km. from an educational institution. Instances are galore where cinema halls are in existence even by the side of hospital and educational institution. In any event, the District Magistrate and the Commissioner, Presidency Division, both having been satisfied that existing position of the educational institution or hospital or religious institution are beyond a reasonable distance from the proposed site and having also considered the other relevant factors viz., problem of traffic or existence of another cinema hall in the locality, I do not find any jurisdiction to interfere with such discretion exercised by the authorities below. The decision to grant permission to construct a cinema hall in the instant case does not on the face of it appears to be in violation of any Act or Rule nor can it be said to be perverse. Therefore, within the narrow scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India there is no scope of interference. The decisions cited by Mr. Bhattacharya, in my opinion, do not lay any contrary proposition of law. 16. As regards the other point taken by Mr. Therefore, within the narrow scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India there is no scope of interference. The decisions cited by Mr. Bhattacharya, in my opinion, do not lay any contrary proposition of law. 16. As regards the other point taken by Mr. Bhattacharya, in my view, the District Magistrate did not review his earlier order but he merely complied with the direction given by B.M. Mitra, J. to consider the representation of the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and as such it cannot be said that he exercised a power of review although no such power is conferred upon him. Therefore, the said contention is equally devoid of any substance. Therefore, this revisional application is devoid of any merit and is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances there will be however no order as to costs.