Judgment :- 1. The above writ petition is directed against the order of the first respondent in G.O..(D)No. 55. Home (Cin. 1) Department dated 16.2.1993. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder:—The petitioner has constructed a permanent A/c Cinema Theatre at K. Pudhur, Madurai District in the year 1986. The cinema theatre consists of ground floor and first floor. The petitioner has obtained necessary permission from various authorities for the exhibition of cinema film. He has also submitted a plan for approval before second respondent and the same was approved by him on 24.12.1982. Again, he has submitted a plan for some modification and the same was approved by the second respondent on 27.8.86. The petitioner has obtained the “C” Form licence from the second respondent on 27.8.86 without any conditions. The licence was valid from 27.8.86 to 31.7.87 (sic). Again the second respondent has renewed the “C” Form licence from 1.8.87 to 31.7.88 and from 2.8.88 to 8.7.89. It is further stated that the total seating capacity in the first floor was 224. For that purpose, the petitioner has constructed two stair case according to Rule 61 (9) of Tamil Nadu cinemas Regulation Rules, 1955 (in short “the Rules”). While so, the second respondent issued a notice to the petitioner to remove the circular type stair case and the width of the door should be 1.5 metre instead of 1.35 metre. The second respondent has also renewed the licence from 1.8.88 to 8.7.89. On 28.11.88 the petitioner has submitted a petition for exemption from rule 60(2) and 61(9) of the Rules. Again the second respondent has renewed the licence on various subsequent dates without any condition. On 1 6.2.93 the first respondent has passed an order stating that defects can be rectified without affecting the structural soundness of the building and also with huge expenditure. The first respondent has requested the second respondent to give six months time to carryout the alterations and thereby rejected the exemption petition filed by the petitioners manager, against which the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents. 4. The first respondent has requested the second respondent to give six months time to carryout the alterations and thereby rejected the exemption petition filed by the petitioners manager, against which the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents. 4. As per the impugned order, the petitioner has to carry out the following alterations:— i) The width of the order of the theatre should be widened to 1.5 metre instead of 1.35 metre; and ii) Circular type staircase have to be removed and new staircase has to be constructed as per Rule 61 (9) of the Rules. 5. Even at the outset learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has no grievance with regard to compliance of the first condition, hence it is unnecessary to consider the same. As regards second condition, namely, removal of circular type staircase, since the petitioner theatre consists of ground and first floor, she has to construct two staircases to provide access to gallery or upper floor. It is not disputed that after obtaining necessary permission from various authorities for exhibition of cinema film, the plan submitted by the petitioner was approved by the second respondent even on 24.12.82. The said plan was modified to some extent and the same was also approved by the second respondent on 27.8.86. She also obtained “C” Form licence from the second respondent on the same day without any condition. It is also not disputed that the “C” Form licence was renewed periodically without any condition. I have already stated that the second respondent granted permission and approved the plan to exhibit cinema film even in the year 1982. In other words, the circular type staircase which was constructed in the year 1982 was approved by the second respondent with some modifications and “C” Form licence was being renewed periodically. Only in the year 1990 in the application made by the Manager of the petition theatre on the basis of the report of the Collector, Madurai, first respondent has passed the impugned order declining to exempt from Rule 61(9) of the Rules and granted permission to carry out necessary alterations in the theatre in order to satisfy the said Rule. Only in the year 1990 in the application made by the Manager of the petition theatre on the basis of the report of the Collector, Madurai, first respondent has passed the impugned order declining to exempt from Rule 61(9) of the Rules and granted permission to carry out necessary alterations in the theatre in order to satisfy the said Rule. Learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing my attention to the fact that the very same theatre was approved by the second respondent in the year 1982 and the “C” Form licence was renewed periodically till the passing of the impugned order by the first respondent, would contend that the report of the District Collector cannot be sustained. No doubt, in the report, the District Collector has stated that the circular type staircase can be removed without affecting the building and new staircase can be constructed as per rule 61(9) of the said Rules. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the circular type staircase cannot be removed without causing damage to the main building. A perusal of the impugned order shows that only on the basis of the report of the District Collector, the Government rejected, the request of the petitioner from granting exemption from the purview of Rule 61 (9). The steps taken by the Collector and the materials for arriving to such conclusion were not placed before the Court, nor explained by way of filing counter affidavit. It is not clear whether the Collector had taken the assistance of competent Civil/Structural Engineer before sending his report. In the absence of any such material from the records or in the form of counter affidavit, I am inclined to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have already stated that the same structure is in existence from 1982 and “C” Form licence was renewed periodically. 6. In the light of what is stated above, the impugned order of the first respondent is quashed. The second respondent namely District Collector, Madurai, is directed to inspect the petitioner theatre and submit a fresh report to the Government with the assistance of competent Civil/Structural Engineer. The second respondent is also directed that the said inspection be made after notice and in the presence of the petitioner. The second respondent namely District Collector, Madurai, is directed to inspect the petitioner theatre and submit a fresh report to the Government with the assistance of competent Civil/Structural Engineer. The second respondent is also directed that the said inspection be made after notice and in the presence of the petitioner. On receipt of the fresh report from the second respondent as stated above, it is open to the first respondent lo pass appropriate orders Writ petition is allowed to the extent mentioned above. No costs. Consequently, all the miscellaneous petitions are closed.