Judgment DESHPANDE R.G., J.:---Petitioner is an Association of Cinema Exhibitors having been formed by the owners of various cinema exhibitors, owners and operators of cinema exhibition halls/theatres in the city of Nagpur. The purpose of formation of the Association as is clear from the contents of the petition appears to be exposing the cause of its members. Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the action of the respondents on multiple grounds permitting the respondent No. 4 by the respondents 1 to 3 to establish and operate cinema theatre/multiplex on plot No. 91, Mouza Lendra, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur. 2. Respondent No. 2 Nagpur Improvement Trust is an authority constituted under the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the NIT Act' for the purposes of brevity). Respondent No. 3 is the Commissioner of Police who is also a Licensing Authority empowered with other ancillary powers under the Maharashtra Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cinema Regulation Rules' for the purposes of brevity). Respondent No. 4 is a Company registered under the Companies Act and being looked after by its Chairman and Managing Director. The site in dispute in Kh.No. 91 of Mouza Lendra Ramdaspeth, Nagpur situated on North Ambazari Road of the city. Undisputedly the land falls well within the jurisdiction of Nagpur Improvement Trust for the purpose of its utilization, development and other activities thereon. 3. Nagpur Improvement Trust has come into existence with an idea of making appropriate provisions for improvement and expansion of the city of Nagpur. Planned development of the city providing all amenities and allied activities is a duty cast on the Improvement Trust. 4. The subject-matter of the present petition is grant of permission by the respondents 1 to 3 to respondent No. 4 to erect and establish a multi storeyed complex as Multiplex and Entertainment Complex on the site in question which according to the present petitioner association offends very many Rules and Regulations governing the subject, as also the rights of the citizens in general. 5. In the month of April 2002, respondent No. 2 issued tender notice calling upon the prospective construction companies and builders to submit the tender forms for erecting and building a multiplex and entertainment complex on the site in question. Issuance of the tender notice and calling of the tender forms is not in dispute. 5. In the month of April 2002, respondent No. 2 issued tender notice calling upon the prospective construction companies and builders to submit the tender forms for erecting and building a multiplex and entertainment complex on the site in question. Issuance of the tender notice and calling of the tender forms is not in dispute. In pursuance of the above said tender notice, only 18 prospective builders filled in the tender forms out of which only two remained present at the bidding. The tender form of the respondent No. 4 was accepted and work is allotted to it. The work is awarded for Rs. 16,10,00,000/- (Rs. Sixteen crore, Ten lacs only). This acceptance of the tender form of the respondent No. 4, allotment of work to it, according to the petitioner is not in accordance with law, the Rules and Regulations as also is to cause a substantial monetary loss to the respondent No. 2. The petitioner association has challenged the same on very many grounds. Necessary it is to note that petitioner association was not amongst those who did submit the tender forms for allotment of work, nor did any one from the members thereof. 6. The challenges raised by the petitioners are that as per the development plan of the city permissible F.S.I. for cinema theatre in the map is 1:1, however, the tender notice issued has mentioned it as 1 : 1.45. According to the petitioner, there was no authority in the respondent No. 2 to unilaterally increases this F.S.I. Petitioner's further contention is that while entering into the agreement with the respondent No. 4, surprisingly the respondent No. 2 permitted the F.S.I. of 2.5 to the respondent No. 4 for erecting the structure on the site in question. Petitioner contends that this is in absolute contravention of the permissible limits of F.S.I. which according to it smacks foul. On the basis of this challenge, petitioner further contends in the petition that by awarding the tender to the respondent No. 4 for Rs. 16,10,00,000/- has virtually caused minimum a loss of Rs. 12,00,00,000/- to the Improvement Trust as according to the petitioner when the tender was allotted for Rs. 16,10,00,000/-, it was for the permissible F.S.I. 1.45 which actually has been raised to F.S.I. 2.5 which means the increased F.S.I. cannot be said to have been charged to the respondent No. 4. 16,10,00,000/- has virtually caused minimum a loss of Rs. 12,00,00,000/- to the Improvement Trust as according to the petitioner when the tender was allotted for Rs. 16,10,00,000/-, it was for the permissible F.S.I. 1.45 which actually has been raised to F.S.I. 2.5 which means the increased F.S.I. cannot be said to have been charged to the respondent No. 4. The petitioner, therefore, has stated that the transaction definitely appeared to be not bona fidely entered into and could be said to have been clouded with doubts. 7. Petitioner further contended that since at the time of issuance of the tender the F.S.I. available was shown only 1 : 1.45 but while actually awarding the tender in favour of the respondent No. 4, it is awarded at 2.5 is a fraud played by the respondents thereby the other many prospective participants are virtually preclluded from participating and bidding in the same. Petitioner contends that to eliminate, as far as possible the competition, this novel way appeared to have been introduced and implemented by the respondents. The very fairness of the transaction, therefore, is challenged by the petitioner. 8. Another challenge raised by the petitioner association is the site in question was initially definitely reserved for the Indian Institute of Architecture. However, for the reasons best known to the authorities concerned, the same has been withdrawn in the year 1991 and got converted and reserved for commercial complex and convention centre thereby depriving the institution of architecture. This conversion of the site in question after withdrawing it from the above said institution and its reservation for commercial complex and convention hall is already a subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 1626/91 in this Court at the instance of the Institute. 9. Another challenge to the transaction is grant of permission to construct and erect a commercial complex and a multiplex on the site in question it being, according to the petitioner, in total contravention of various circulars and instructions issued by the Government-respondent No. 1 and precisely the one dated May 14th, 1985. Petitioner contends, the circular prohibits erection or construction of a cinema hall within the radius or distance of 61 metres from the boundary of any school, hospital, temple or other like institutions. Petitioner contends, the circular prohibits erection or construction of a cinema hall within the radius or distance of 61 metres from the boundary of any school, hospital, temple or other like institutions. Petitioner contended that Nagpur Nagrik Sahakari Rungnalaya, a well known and old medical hospital is just by the side of the proposed site and if the multiplex is allowed to be raised, it will be in contravention of the Government's decision. 10. Petitioner contends that in a most cunning way, the site is said to have been converted and reserved for commercial complex and convention centre and surreptitiously multiplex is being brought on the site under the pretext of commercial complex and convention centre. Petitioner's contention is that by no stretch of imagination multiplex or theatre can be brought within the definition and meaning of commercial complex and convention centre. 11. Petitioner further contended that even before raising the construction of a theatre or cinema hall, permission from the Competent Authority for construction has to be obtained under the relevant Act and the Rules. However, even before any such permission was obtained, the construction is already started which according to the petitioner demonstrate the well determined and planned design to erect the multiplex without caring for the legal obstacles. 12. Petitioner further raised amongst other challenges one important challenge that the various other problems are likely to be caused and are likely to crop up because of the construction of multiplex as regards the congestion inside and outside the premises danger to the lives of thousands of people on the roads, pollution, danger to the surrounding localities etc. and very many other problems to which, reference in details is being made in this judgment in subsequent paragraphs at appropriate places. 13. According to the petitioner the proposed construction of multiplex is in contravention of the development plan as also in contravention of the Rules and Regulations and hence the petitioner sought for the relief in the nature of declaration to the effect that the action of the respondents 1 to 3 being in contravention of the provisions of the Act, Rules and Regulations as also Government decisions be declared as illegal and sought for restraint order against the respondents from granting "no objection certificate" to the respondent No. 4 for the proposed construction of multiplex and entertainment complex on the site in question. 14. 14. While opposing the petition, respondent No. 2 through its submissions dated September 2nd, 2002 contended that petition was premature as the objection dated June 14th, 2002 raised before the Commissioner of Police respondent No. 3 by the petitioner to the proposed multiplex cum entertainment complex was yet pending decision before the authority and hence the petition, according to the respondent No. 2, is premature. This objection was raised by the petitioner in pursuance of the notice displayed on the site in question by the respondent No. 3 on June 5th, 2002. The petition is also opposed by the respondent No. 2 contending that the petitioner has no locus whatsoever to file the present petition particularly when the petitioner association is also engaged in the same business of cinema exhibition and running of cinema halls and theatres and further that one of the members of the petitioner association did participate in pre-bid meeting. According to the respondent No. 2 petitioner association is adversely interested and it is an adversary litigation disentitling the petitioner for any relief. Respondent No. 2 contended that respondent No. 1 State Government had taken a decision on September 20th, 2001 as regards the multiplex construction and the same was absolutely in public interest as also in the interest of the very city thereby the city will be provided with ultra modern recreational amenities and adding to the beautification of the city. In this context the challenge is that the very decision of the Government for reservation of the site for commercial complex cum convention hall and further the decision of the Government to reserve the site for such purposes since was not challenged at initial stage itself, it was not open for the petitioner to challenge the same now. 15. Respondent No. 2 further contended that the nature of the construction is on the terms of B.O.T. basis i.e. built, operate and transfer basis. Respondent No. 2 contended that the tender notice was widely published not only in the State but all over the country with an intention to obtain maximum and best possible offers for the construction of the multiplex. According to the respondent No. 2 the construction to come up would be of the rarest of the rare classes of construction. Respondent No. 2 contended that the tender notice was widely published not only in the State but all over the country with an intention to obtain maximum and best possible offers for the construction of the multiplex. According to the respondent No. 2 the construction to come up would be of the rarest of the rare classes of construction. Challenge as regards the F.S.I. raised by the petitioner is totally denied by the respondent No. 2 contending that for such construction the F.S.I. was to be 1.45 only but that was the F.S.I. to be used for multiplex entertainment complex. According to the respondent it did not ever mean that the permissible F.S.I. for the complete site in question for total construction was only 1.45. According to the development Rules as contended by the respondent, as also in accordance with the Government Notification dated September 10th, 2001, the permissible F.S.I. for the site in question right from the beginning is 2.5. Definitely, therefore, according to the respondent No. 2 the petitioners were labouring under wrong notions. This point, according to the respondent No. 2, was also made clear in pre-bid meeting held on April 20th, 2002. Withdrawal of the land from the reservation for Indian Institute of Architecture and its conversion into a commercial/convention hall is admitted by the respondent. While justifying this withdrawal, it is contended that under certain misconception of facts and on wrong recommendation of certain officers, it was allotted to that institute but the mistake has been rectified and the Government has also sanctioned the allotment of the site for the present purpose under the development plan. It was so Gazetted on September 21st, 2001. 16. So far as regards the change in user is concerned, respondent No. 2 contended that under the terminology convention centre/commercial complex, multiplex is also governed and, therefore, there is no change of user nor is there any contravention of any of the Rules and Regulations or any other provisions of any Act. Respondent No. 2, therefore, contended that the petitioners have their personal self interest and are trying to plug the huge undertaking which is for the benefit of the people in general. 17. He further contends in the pre-bid meeting dated April 20th, 2002, 17 tenderers were present as also one of the members of the petitioner association attended the meeting. Respondent No. 2, therefore, contended that the petitioners have their personal self interest and are trying to plug the huge undertaking which is for the benefit of the people in general. 17. He further contends in the pre-bid meeting dated April 20th, 2002, 17 tenderers were present as also one of the members of the petitioner association attended the meeting. Contention of the respondent No. 2 is that reserved price was Rs. 10 crores of the project whereas the deal has been struck at Rs. 16.10 crores. It is a most beneficial deal. Question of loss whatsoever was not there. It is further argued that the construction is in the name of the respondent No. 2 itself and will be transferred back to the respondent No. 2 in accordance with the B.O.T. basis as stipulated in the agreement dated July 23rd, 2002 between respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 4. There was no question of an attempt on the part of the respondents to prevent anyone from the bidding those who had filled in the tender forms. Petitioner association did not fill in the tender nor any one of its members. 18. Respondents state that Rules permitted even in residential zone a cinema house or a theatre and hence when the site in question is situated in commercial zone construction of cinema theatre is definitely permissible. Even otherwise according to them it is not only a cinema theatre which is coming up but it is a conceptual multiplex entertainment-cum-commercial complex in the nature of a well equipped but compact mini theatres which are proposed to be three in that building which is multi storeyed about 7. Other than three mini theatre, the proposed site would also contain other entertainment facilities such as Bowling Alley, Art Gallery, Snooker and Billiards Parior, Video Games, Cyber Cafe, Skating Rink, Rides Stimulator, Shopping Mall etc. Since the major activities are other than the cinema theatres, there has to be no objection for such construction on any count. 19. The capacity of the proposed three mini theatres in the building will not be more than 1000 and approximate being 300 for each theatre. To avoid congestion and spot getting over-crowded, the cinemas are likely to be run in staggered timing. In addition to this, appropriate arrangements are being made for parking and the construction will be totally air conditioned and sound proof. To avoid congestion and spot getting over-crowded, the cinemas are likely to be run in staggered timing. In addition to this, appropriate arrangements are being made for parking and the construction will be totally air conditioned and sound proof. Even otherwise, according to the respondents, already a theatre is permitted on the same road opposite to the proposed site which is being run since many years past. It is contended that the objection raised on the ground that it is likely to cause danger to the people gathering there because of the congestion and pollution has no substance. In short the points raised by the petitioner are opposed on all counts and the respondents contended that Bhoomipoojan is already done under the auspicious presence of the then Chief Minister of the State on July 6th, 2002. Even on the point of site being on the junction i.e. on the square of main roads, existence of hospital, educational institution is not likely to be affected in any manner because of the present construction. 20. The respondent No. 4 opposed the petition on all counts mostly adopting the defence as is taken by the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 21. In view of the above said pleadings of the parties and their arguments, the points which require consideration in short are : a) Whether the petitioner association has locus standi to challenge the action of the respondents pertaining to the present construction and whether petition is maintainable at the its instance? b) Whether this petition can be treated as a public interest litigation? c) Whether respondents have contravened any of the provisions of the Act, the Rules and the Regulations in that respect while granting permission for construction of multiplex/commercial complex/convention hall? d) Was it necessary for the respondents to have obtained permission from the competent authority before actually starting construction of the building which contains three cinema halls? e) Did the respondents consider the other relevant aspects such as after effects completion of the construction, on the close by localities as also on the traffic, pollution, environment and other inconveniences likely to be caused to the public in general and residents of the nearby locality in particular including that of inconvenience to the hospital situated next to the proposed site which is quite a big hospital, old and well recognized? f) Is the construction in any way in contravention of the development plan? 22. One Mr. M. Dorairajan, a social worker of the city of Nagpur and a trustee of the Nagpur Nagrik Sahakari Rugnalaya, Nagpur, who is also engaged in social services for amelioration of conditions of workers, filed the petition opposing the proposed construction raising very many objections. The points raised by the association on certain points have been more clarified taken in details in this petition including the other objections raised in the petition. This petition was heard for admission at the time of the hearing of the W.P. No. 2697/2002 and rule in both these petitions is made returnable forthwith and the matters are taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties. Hence both these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. 23. For narrating the details of W.P. No. 3556/2002, suffice it is to say that the points and the majority of the facts being common, the facts narrated in W.P. No. 2697/2002 are sufficient for disposal of both these petitions. 24. There is no dispute that the site in question is situated just on the junction of North Ambazari Road and East High Court Road. The respondent No. 1 Government in the Government Gazette dated June 9th, 1983 which is Nagpur Divisional Supplement, on page 240 through the Urban Development Department published the Development Control Regulations, 2000 for the city of Nagpur. Nagpur Improvement Trust the respondent No. 2 is the planning authority for the area within the Nagpur Municipal Corporation limits. This finds support from the provisions of section 2(15)(C)(iii) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MRTP Act' for the purposes of brevity). Prior to that Municipal Corporation of the City of Nagpur did also frame the building bye-laws in pursuance of the provisions of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948. This finds support from the provisions of section 2(15)(C)(iii) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MRTP Act' for the purposes of brevity). Prior to that Municipal Corporation of the City of Nagpur did also frame the building bye-laws in pursuance of the provisions of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948. Since two Acts were operating in the same field and as there was possibility of conflict between the two which would lead to chaotic situation and other problems in administration and implementation, the respondent No. 1 State issued directives on January 1st, 1993 under section 154 of the M.R.T.P. Act to both the above said local authorities that the draft building regulations and Development Control Rules submitted by the N.I.T. on October 11, 1990 would be followed by both the authorities functioning within the Municipal Corporation limits. Naturally Deputy Director of Town Planning, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, submitted revised Building Regulations and Development Control Rules as the earlier one needed substantial modification. The respondent No. 1 in pursuance of the powers conferred under section 31 of the M.R.T.P. Act, invited objections and suggestions from the persons concerned with respect to the Draft Building Regulation and Development Control Rules. The Deputy Director of Town Planning, Nagpur Division, Nagpur, was conferred with the powers of an officer to receive the objections and suggestions and to give hearing to the objections and to consider the suggestions, if any, received within the stipulated time. Development Control Regulations, 2000 thus received sanction from the Government in accordance with the provisions of section 31(1) of the M.R.T.P. Act. 25. Part I of these Regulations deal with the administration. Development Control Regulations, 2000 thus received sanction from the Government in accordance with the provisions of section 31(1) of the M.R.T.P. Act. 25. Part I of these Regulations deal with the administration. Clause 2.55.1 thereof deals with the Residential Buildings, Clause 2.55.2 deals with the Educational Buildings, Clause 2.55.3 deals with Institutional Buildings which includes a building constructed by Government, Semi Government organization or registered trusts and used for medical or other treatment, a hostel for working women and for an auditorium or complex for cultural and allied activities or for an Hospice care of persons suffering from physical or mental illness, handicap disease or infirmity, care of orphans, abandoned women, children and infants, convalescents, destitute or aged persons and for penal or correctional detention with restricted liberty of the inmates ordinarily providing sleeping accommodation and includes dharmshalas, hospitals, sanatoria, custodial and penal institutions such as jails, prisons, mental hospitals, houses of corrections detention and reformatories. 26. Above said provision suggests about the special care to be taken while granting permission. In our opinion, Clause 14 of the Regulations 2000 has importance as is clear from its very marginal heading which is "Land Use Classifications and Uses Permitted'. Sub-clause (1) thereof provides for various uses and occupancies and premises to be permitted in the various zones referred to in Appendix "M" in the said Regulations. Modification in Appendix "M" no doubt is permitted but the same could be only with a prior approval from the Director Town Planning. No building or premises shall be changed or converted to a use not in conformity with the provisions of these Regulations. Sub-clauses of Clause 14 if read together suggests that the uses of the premises are to be strictly in conformity with the zones in which those are situated and where the use thereof is not specifically designated on the development plan, then they shall be totally in conformity with the zone in which they fall. Clause 15 of the Regulations deals with the open space, area and height limitations. 27. In view of the provisions referred to in the previous paragraph, in our opinion, it would be appropriate to refer to entries in appendix framed under Regulation 14.2. Appendix M R-1 is directed to be a residential zone and what are the uses permissible in that zone are given in details in Clause M-1.1. 27. In view of the provisions referred to in the previous paragraph, in our opinion, it would be appropriate to refer to entries in appendix framed under Regulation 14.2. Appendix M R-1 is directed to be a residential zone and what are the uses permissible in that zone are given in details in Clause M-1.1. Suffice it is to observe that any of the sub-clauses of this Clause M-1.1, use of the premises or site for cinema purposes, commercial complex, or convention halls is not mentioned which will have to be presumed as not permissible in R-1 Zone. Clause M-2 thereof deals with the residential zone with shop lines which is shown as R-2 zone. This zone contains the residential zone abutting on road having width 12 meters and above in non-congested area and 9 meters and above in congested area except no shopping streets. R-2 permits uses of those which are given in R-1 also. On reading the said regulations minutely, according to us Clause M-2 and its sub-clauses also do not permit a cinema theatre or multiplex or multi complex. Clause M-2.3 in this Appendix M and precisely in designated R-2 zone, if the premises or building is an independent, drive in theatres, theatres, cinema houses, multiplex, club houses, assembly or concert halls, dance and music studies and such places of entertainment with the special written permission from the authority are permitted. Third zone referred in the regulations is totally as Commercial Area Zone which permits the buildings and the premises to be used only for the uses and purposes given in M-3.2 but subject to the conditions given in M-3.1. Clause M-3.2 suggests any use permissible in residential zone with shop lines R-2 without area and floor restrictions. However, it clearly means that in commercial zone, the use permitted in M-2.3 could also be said to have been permissible. Rest of the zones to which a reference is made in this Appendix M, are not relevant for these petitions. 28. On having a glance of the above said provision, exactly in what zone the site in question falls will decide whether the construction in question is permissible or not. The location of the plot in question clearly indicates that there is no prohibition for having the shopping frontage as per the Development Control Rules on the roads in question. 28. On having a glance of the above said provision, exactly in what zone the site in question falls will decide whether the construction in question is permissible or not. The location of the plot in question clearly indicates that there is no prohibition for having the shopping frontage as per the Development Control Rules on the roads in question. Development plan sanctioned also indicates the consideration of the said point and Annexure B thereof makes the position quite clear. Material on the record definitely falls short to suggest and to conclusively hold that North Ambazari road and East High Court road are non-commercial roads. Therefore, in our opinion, the erection of commercial building having frontage on either of the roads cannot be said to be prohibited and if satisfied, it is open for the competent authority to sanction the same. Since the development plan is not under challenge nor was it challenged by the petitioner earlier when it was so published, the construction has to be there strictly in accordance with those regulations and if it complies with the same, there cannot be any successful objection to such construction. Therefore, erection of a commercial complex on the site in question cannot be objected to. However, when it is a commercial complex including the theatres irrespective of its size, whether could be said to be permissible or not will have to be looked into independently as in our opinion, the Rules and Regulations applicable to the theatres or cinema halls are different which also are required to be complied with strictly. 29. We, therefore, do not hesitate to observe that erection of a commercial building or commercial complex or convention hall can be said to be permissible on the site in question but for the construction of a theatre/theatres, for which different Rules and Regulations will have to be complied with. We propose to deal on this point as regards permissibility of theatre in the proposed construction independently and as a last point in this judgment. 30. We propose to deal on this point as regards permissibility of theatre in the proposed construction independently and as a last point in this judgment. 30. So far as regards the question of locus of the petitioner is concerned, Shri K.H. Deshpande, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 as also Shri V.R. Manohar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4 vehemently contended that the present petitioner association is an association of persons who are engaged and interested in the cinema exhibition activities. The members of the association either run the business of cinema exhibition or own theatres in the city. According to them, therefore, when the present multiplex is being objected to, the said objection has to be treated to be a litigation adversary in nature and, therefore, under the garb of public interest litigation the petition should not be entertained and the petitioner has no locus to approach this Court. Both the learned Advocates stretched their arguments contending that with an intention to curb competition in their business, the petition is filed through the association by some of the interested members thereof. The learned Advocates, therefore, contended that this is a petition of adversary nature and since the present construction is permissible and is being carried out in accordance with the Rules and Regulations, the objection on this point raised by the petitioner should be rejected. According to the learned Advocates for the respondents, any how to bring the matter within the jurisdiction of this Court, it is being coloured as public interest litigation when in fact according to the learned Advocates there were no objections raised by any of the residents of the nearby locality or institutions or even by any one from general public. The learned Advocates for the respondents, therefore, contended that the petitioner has neither the locus standi to file the present petition nor can it be treated to be a public interest litigation. 31. In support of their contentions, the respondents relied on a decision reported in 1999(6) S.C.C. 552 in the matter of (Malik Brothers v. Narendra Dadhich and others)1. Relying on this judgment, it is argued that the Court should not entertain the present petition much less in its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the behest of the petitioner. Relying on this judgment, it is argued that the Court should not entertain the present petition much less in its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the behest of the petitioner. In the judgment cited above, the facts are so glaringly different that in our opinion, it would not be appropriate to apply the principles laid down in that case for the decision of the present case. In the case cited supra, the bidder's amount was forfeited. Having been enraged because of the action on the part of the authorities in that matter and the Award was being implemented, the same was challenged by the bidder whose amount was forfeited raising the point that implementation of the Award would cause serious injury and it would be against the public interest as the value of the land was much more and better than the value to which it was being handed over to the appellant in that case. The facts clearly indicate, the appellant in that case was directly involved in the matter and directly interested and he having failed in depositing the requisite amount, the initial deposit was forfeited in accordance with the terms of auction. Having been unsuccessful in getting the Award in his favour, the transaction was challenged by the appellant contending that it was not beneficial and was against public interest. In the case in hand, however, we have seen that neither the association nor any of its members submitted the tender nor did they compete for getting the tender or contract but the challenges are on the points which, in our opinion, directly relate to the contravention of certain Rules and Regulations which are binding on the respondents themselves. In our opinion, therefore, the case cited above is of no assistance to the respondents on this count. 32. Another decision to which our attention was invited to by the learned Advocates for the respondents, is A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 802, in the matter of (Bandhu Mukti Morcha v. Union of India)2. On the basis of this judgment it is urged on behalf of the respondents a litigation in the nature of adversary litigation cannot be said to be a public interest litigation. On the basis of this judgment it is urged on behalf of the respondents a litigation in the nature of adversary litigation cannot be said to be a public interest litigation. In the above said judgment, it is observed that public interest litigation cannot be in the nature of an adversary litigation but it is a challenge and an opportunity to the Government and its officers to the deprived and vulnerable sections of the community and to assure them social and economic justice which is the signature time of our Constitution. The Government and its officers must welcome public interest litigation, because it would provide them an occasion to examine whether the poor and the down-trodden are getting their social and economic entitlements or whether they are continuing to remain victims of deception and exploitation at the hands of strong and powerful sections of the community and whether social and economic justice has become a meaningful reality for them or it has remained merely a teasing illusion and to promise of unreality, so that in case the complaint in the public interest litigation is found to be true, they can, in discharge of their constitutional obligation root out exploitation and injustice and ensure to the weaker sections their rights and entitlements. The case cited above was in connection with fighting of the petitioner for the cause of the bonded labourers in the country. The petitioner association in that petition was dedicated to the cause of release of bonded labourers. In our opinion, whether to entertain the petition in hand or not as a public interest litigation and whether the association has a locus standi to file the petition or not, will have to be looked into from the observations made by the Supreme Court in that case when the Supreme Court observes "when the Court entertains public interest litigation, it does not do so in a cavilling spirit or in a confrontational mood or with a view to tilting at executive authority or seeking to usurp it, but its attempt is only to ensure observance of social and economic rescue programmes, legislative as well as executive, framed for the benefit of the have-nots and the handicapped and to protect them against violation of their basic human rights, which is also the constitutional obligation of the executive. The Court is thus merely assisting in the realisation of the constitutional objectives". 33. The Court is thus merely assisting in the realisation of the constitutional objectives". 33. The Supreme Court has dealt in that matter of Bandhua Mukti Morcha keeping before it the importance of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which assures the right to live with human dignity, free from exploitation. Keeping in mind the observations of the Supreme Court in the above said case, we have to say this Court is not looking towards the matter in hand in a cavilling spirit or in a confrontational mood with a view to tilting at executive authority or seeking to usurp it. If something wrong is brought to the notice of the Court which appeared to be not in consonance with the Rules and Regulations by which the Government authorities or the local authorities are also bound, then in our opinion though the petitioner is not closely associated with the problem but is likely to be a sufferer as an ordinary citizen, of illegal action then in that case Court cannot shut it eyes observing that the petitioner has no locus. In the instant matter, in our opinion, the petition at the instance of the present petitioner is maintainable and the petitioner definitely has locus to approach this Court with the grievance expressed in the petition. 34. We feel it necessary to mention that the general public ordinarily is not ready to come out of the shell unless they are the victims of some such illegal acts. This is the tendency of a common man. The way of life, the style of living, the day to day botherations in life do not allow the general public to go to the Courts of law and agitate for their rights unless they virtually become the victim of it. We, therefore, do not feel that merely because the association has approached this Court and not any of the members of the public who are likely to be affected, would not mean that we should avoid to look into the matter even from point of view of public interest. In our opinion, therefore, it would not be wrong if we observe that the present petitioner association has definitely locus to approach this Court as also the petition at its instance is maintainable. 35. In our opinion, therefore, it would not be wrong if we observe that the present petitioner association has definitely locus to approach this Court as also the petition at its instance is maintainable. 35. Respondents relied on a decision reported in A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 391, in the matter of (Forward Construction Company v. Prabhat Mandal (Regd.), Andheri)3. In the case cited above, the land was acquired for the purpose of Bus Depot and since the authorities felt that the land could be best utilized even for augmenting the income of the BEST along with the main purpose of utilizing it for the Best Undertaking, the same was held permissible. No one can have any second opinion in the matter cited above as has been expressed by the Supreme Court. However, the question is whatsoever the construction would come up on the site in question in the present case, has to be in accordance with the Rules and Regulations. We have already observed that erection of multi storeyed building for commercial purpose could not be objected to in the present case. However, when the matter comes for consideration of running of a cinema hall in the said building or a cinema theatre, whatsoever the Rules and Regulations are applicable to the construction of such cinema halls or theatres with all its limitations are to be strictly observed to and any deviation therefrom even in slightest manner may characterize the building as an illegal so far as it relates to cinema theatres or cinema hall. 36. In the case cited supra, though the land was acquired for the purpose of Best Depot, the need of the Depot was being fulfilled and thereafter since the space was available the same was being utilized for providing such facilities to the passengers which would be of immense help and comfort to the passengers. However, whether such is the case in hand will have to be looked into independently when we will be dealing with the point as regards inconvenience to the public in general. 37. Our attention is invited to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1650 in the matter of (State of Gujarat v. Krishna Cinema)4. However, whether such is the case in hand will have to be looked into independently when we will be dealing with the point as regards inconvenience to the public in general. 37. Our attention is invited to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1650 in the matter of (State of Gujarat v. Krishna Cinema)4. Relying on this decision, the learned Counsel contended that since the construction could be said to be permissible and since the construction is set in motion and is in accordance with the development plan, the objection on behalf of the petitioner should not be entertained. In the case of State of Gujarat referred to above, the respondent therein was engaged in the business of exhibiting cinematograph films in a then existed theatre named Krishna theatre at Rajkot. On a plot adjacent to the Krishna theatre, respondent constructed an annexe for exhibiting foreign films with an independent screen and auditorium. Construction of the building was permitted by the Rajkot Municipality and it was strictly in accordance with the rules and Regulations applicable to the construction. In that matter, objection was taken on behalf of the appellant that before the construction of the cinema hall, compliance of Rule 89 of the Bombay Cinemas (Regulation) Act 11 of 1953 was not complied with and, therefore, no objection certificate should not be issued in respect of the annexe. The District Magistrate who heard the objections, forwarded his report to the State Government informing the construction should have commenced only after having obtained the necessary no objection certificate under the Act. The Government directed not to grant "no objection certificate" and the same was communicated by the District Magistrate to the party concerned. This was communicated by the Additional District Magistrate whose order was challenged before the High Court of Gujarat. The High Court observed that since the construction was strictly in accordance with the Rules and regulations and since conversion of the building into cinematograph exhibition hall was permissible, the High Court directed the District Magistrate to issue no objection certificate to the owner of Krishna theatre. Decision of the High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court. The High Court observed that since the construction was strictly in accordance with the Rules and regulations and since conversion of the building into cinematograph exhibition hall was permissible, the High Court directed the District Magistrate to issue no objection certificate to the owner of Krishna theatre. Decision of the High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court. While dismissing the appeal of the Government, the Supreme Court observed that the authority which made the order on behalf of the State Government appeared to have been oblivious of the circumstances in which the building was constructed. The Government did not consider whether the building already in existence which complied with all the requirements of the Rules could be allowed to be converted into a cinematograph theatre. In that case the Government's contention was and its objection to the grant of no objection certificate was that contrary to the terms of Rule 89 framed under that Act, the respondents had constructed the annexe before the State Government considered application for a no objection certificate. In our opinion, in the present matter though we have observed that the construction was permissible on the site in question of the commercial complex, however, so far as regards the construction relates to the construction of cinema hall or cinematograph theatre irrespective of its size whether should be allowed in contravention of the Rules. In our opinion, therefore, the decision cited above in the matter of State of Gujarat v. Krishna Theatre is of not much assistance to the respondents. The case in hand is not a case of conversion of an existing building into a cinema theatre. 38. The respondents further relied on the decision of the (Bandra Cecelia Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and another v. State of Maharashtra and others)5, reported in 1996(4) Bom.C.R. 674 : 1996(2) Mh.L.J. 550 . This decision was relied for the purpose of change of the user of the site in question. However, we do not intend to dilate on this point as in our opinion since the petition at the instance of Indian Institute of Architecture is pending decision before the Court which will be decided independently as and when that petition will be heard on its own merits. We feel it not appropriate to deal with the point raised in that petition. 39. We feel it not appropriate to deal with the point raised in that petition. 39. Yet another decision is relied upon by the respondents i.e. (M.S. Jayaraj v. Commissioner of Excise, Kerala and others)6, reported in 2000(6) SCALE 674 . That was a case regarding auction of liquor license and of locus standi of the appellant therein to approach the Court. The appellant a successful bidder in that matter in respect of an auction conducted for the liquor shop within the range called "Changanassery Excise Range". The appellant was unable to find suitable place to locate his shop in the said range for which auction was in his favour. He moved an application to the Excise Commissioner for shifting the shop from one range to another range i.e. "Karukachal" range which was granted by the Commissioner. In that range i.e. the changed range, already respondent No. 3 was running a hotel and restaurant with FL-3 license. Permission granted by the Commissioner was challenged by the respondent No. 3 for shifting the location of the shop. In that matter locus of the respondent No. 3 was required to be considered and the Supreme Court observed that in the light of the expanded concept of the locus standi and also in view of the finding of the Division Bench of the High Court, that the order of the Excise Commissioner was passed in violation of law, and the Supreme Court observed "we do not wish to nip the motion out solely on the ground of locus standi. If the Excise Commissioner has no authority to permit a liquor shop owner to move out of the range (for which auction was held) and have his business in another range, it would be improper to allow such an order to remain alive and operative on the sole ground that the person who filed the writ petition has strictly no locus standi". 40. 40. Keeping in view the above said observations of the Supreme Court, in the instant matter we feel that even assuming for the sake of argument that the petitioner happened to be an association engaged in the same business of exhibition of cinema that by itself would not mean that the association cannot maintain the petition or that the association has no locus standi to bring the matter of the Court contending that establishment of cinema hall which is in the present case in the nature of multiplex is in contravention of rules and thus in our opinion if any illegality is brought to the notice of the Court, it would not be proper on the part of this Court to allow the same to be continued merely on the ground saying that the petitioner has no locus standi. In view of above said observations, we feel to add that whenever the question of locus standi arises for consideration, it is not that only one aspect has to be taken into consideration. The challenge in the petition are manifold and some of the challenges do definitely relate to the public interest. The same has to be given due weightage to. In the instant matter none of the members of the petitioner association or the petitioner association itself did participate in the process either by purchasing or by submitting the tender form. No one of them did participate in all the process in any manner. The question therefore, of any adverse interest in the matter does not arise. 41. We all feel it appropriate to observe that once the question is brought before the Court or brought to the notice of the Court, taking of the cognizance thereof would depend on the facts of that particular case. The question therefore, of any adverse interest in the matter does not arise. 41. We all feel it appropriate to observe that once the question is brought before the Court or brought to the notice of the Court, taking of the cognizance thereof would depend on the facts of that particular case. When Courts can take cognizance under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even on the basis of a solitary post card and even on the basis of anonymous letters, then in the instant matter and when the facts are so glaring if the Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case which needs consideration not from the point of view of petitioners alone but from the point of view of the public at large, then in such cases we feel that Court should not preclude itself from taking cognizance merely because there may be chances of the petitioner having been remotely concerned with the said matter. In support of our above said proposition, we can safely rely on the observations made by the Supreme Court in the matter of (Raunaq International Limited v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and others)7, reported in 1999(Supp.) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)836 : 1999(1) Mh.L.J. 98 . Supreme Court in para 10 thereof while dealing with the subject has observed about the elements of public interest, that is what constitutes public interest, (1) public money if it is to be expended for the purpose of contract, (2) the goods or services which are being commissioned could be for a public purpose, such as, construction of roads, public buildings, power plants, or other public utilities, (3) the public would be directly interested in the timely fulfillment of the contract so that the services become available to the public expeditiously, (4) the public would also be interested in the quality of the work undertaken or goods supplied by the tenderer. Though these observations are made in connection with the contracts, in our opinion, in the present matter also public though is not directly shown to have been involved in the matter, in fact it is so closely associated with the project as the project is to come up even according to the respondents for utilization thereof by the public at large. Therefore, in our opinion, interest of the public will have to be safeguarded from all angles. Therefore, in our opinion, interest of the public will have to be safeguarded from all angles. Thus, in our opinion, this petition can be very well said to be maintainable at the instance of the petitioner and in the interest of public. 42. In view of the above said observations, we without slightest vacilliation of mind observe that the present petitioner has definitely locus to maintain the present petition and petition is maintainable at its instance. 43. We have already observed that construction of a building which is a commercial complex cum convention hall cannot be said to be in contravention of the development plan as the site is already, though by conversion, reserved for that purpose. Therefore, the point (f) to which we have referred to in paragraph 21 for consideration has to be held in favour of the respondent. 44. We wish to deal with points, 3, 4 and 5 referred to in para 21, together as they are inter connected and the decision on the three will have to be given considering the material in that respect together. 45. While dealing with the above said three points, it is necessary for us first to refer to the definition of the word "Cinema" as is given in Maharashtra Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1966, framed under section 9 of the Bombay Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1953. Clause (c) of Rule 2 of these Rules define cinema. It means any place where an exhibition by means of cinematograph is given. The Rules no where refer to multiplex or does not define theatre. However, from sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of the said Rules of 1966 in Chapter II thereof, it is made clear that any person desirous of erecting a cinema or converting existing premises into a cinema, shall first make public his intention to do so by exhibiting a notice in Form A on a board on the proposed site in such a position that it can be plainly seen by the public through throughfare upon which the site of such proposed cinema abuts. Exceptions as regards Greater Bombay no doubt are given. From the above said clause, it is clear that a hall or the premises in which exhibition of cinema is made, or cinema is projected, the same has to be known as a theatre. Exceptions as regards Greater Bombay no doubt are given. From the above said clause, it is clear that a hall or the premises in which exhibition of cinema is made, or cinema is projected, the same has to be known as a theatre. The word "theatre" as is given in Shorter Oxford Dictionary, 3rd Edition Volume Two, means a place for viewing, esp. a theatre, a place constructed in the open air for viewing dramatic plays or other spectacles, an amphi-theatre, a natural formation or place suggesting such a structure, a play house, the stage or platform on which the play is acted, a room or hall fitted with tiers of rising seats facing the platform, lectures tables etc., a hall in which cinematograph pictures are exhibited. The only relevant meanings given in the dictionary are referred to by us which are necessary for our purpose. Keeping in view the above said meanings, the building which is being intended to be constructed on the site in question since is being identified as a multiplex/convention hall, but in which definite intention is to exhibit the picture/pictures then in that case whether that area of the building in which the picture will be exhibited which in the instant matter are three in the proposed building, which could be called as theatres or cinema halls though the entire complex may not be so called as a theatre, we are of the opinion that portion of the building definitely falls within the definition of a theatre and, therefore, the regulations by which the construction of a theatre is governed, all those Rules and Regulations will have to be definitely applied to that construction which is known as theatre irrespective of its size and capacity. 46. While dealing with this aspect, it is also necessary for us to consider the provisions of other relevant Acts i.e. Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936, the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 and Bombay Cinema (Regulations) Act, 1953. In none of these Acts, a 'theatre' is defined. Even the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966 and the Rules made thereunder also do not give the definition of a theatre. We, therefore, have already referred to the dictionary meaning of the word 'theatre' on this point. In none of these Acts, a 'theatre' is defined. Even the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966 and the Rules made thereunder also do not give the definition of a theatre. We, therefore, have already referred to the dictionary meaning of the word 'theatre' on this point. Since the competency of the respondent No. 1-State Government as regards the issuance of instructions and directions as also rights of Government to prescribe certain procedure and putting certain restrictions are not in dispute. The instructions and directions issued by the Government in this respect either through Government Resolutions or Circulars will also definitely require appropriate consideration while probing into this question. Government Circular dated May 14, 1985 is placed on the record whereby the Government itself has prescribed certain distances to be maintained between the buildings of a theatre on the one hand and the educational institutions, temple, mosque etc. This circular is issued in consonance with the provisions of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 of the Cinema Regulations Rules, 1966. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 makes it incumbent on the person seeking permission to erect the cinema hall, to show the surrounding areas within 61 metres of the proposed cinema and further as to whether school, hospital, temple or other like places do exist within that area. Initially this distance was 182 metres which has been reduced to 61 metres by the above said Government Circular. Clause (A) of the said circular makes it clear that it is equally binding on the Government itself. Therefore, any construction wherein a cinematograph is to be displayed, the same is termed as a theatre, and it has to be not within the radius of 61 metres from the school, college, hospital, temple etc. The purpose of seeking the declaration as regards distance can nothing but to suggest that the theatre should not be within the prohibited distance of 61 metres. If we read Rules 87 and 89 of the Rules of 1966, we see that it is made compulsory to have no objection from the Licensing Authority even before the construction of the cinema hall is started. From the record, admittedly there is no such permission granted by the respondent No. 3 which in our opinion do definitely operate as fatal so far as regards running of the cinema theatres in the building in question is concerned. From the record, admittedly there is no such permission granted by the respondent No. 3 which in our opinion do definitely operate as fatal so far as regards running of the cinema theatres in the building in question is concerned. These Rules, in our opinion, are applicable as stated earlier, irrespective of the size, the capacity, the number of shows, the floor on which such a cinema hall is situated etc. 47. A multi storeyed building is proposed to be erected along with the three cinema halls therein. There are other very many activities proposed to be carried out and places for those activities are also being provided for. That by itself would not exempt that portion of the building from the definition of a theatre particularly when it is the admission of the respondents themselves that three mini theatres will be there on proposed floors under the garb of Multiplex. We have already observed that what is the size of the theatre and what is the capacity thereof, is immaterial. It may be a small theatre, it may be a huge theatre accommodating viewers as per its capacity. What is prohibited within 61 metres is a building of a theatre or a construction of a theatre irrespective of its seating capacity and size. The building of Nagpur Nagrik Sahari Rugnalaya i.e. the Hospital is within the distance less than 61 metres. The boundaries of the two plots is common i.e. the plot in question and the plot on which the Nagpur Nagrik Sahakari Rugnalaya is standing. So far as the distance of 61 metres which is required to be observed, the question is whether it has to be a distance between two walls of the construction on those plots or it has to be a distance between the two boundaries of the plots on which the constructions are standing. Admitted position is that there is no distance of 61 metres between the two plots i.e. between the said Hospital and the site in question. Respondents made attempts to suggest and to show that the exact distance between the two walls i.e. the eastern wall of the hospital building and the western wall of the proposed construction of the Multiplex, there would be a distance of more than 61 metres. In our opinion, this argument is nothing but playing with the words. Respondents made attempts to suggest and to show that the exact distance between the two walls i.e. the eastern wall of the hospital building and the western wall of the proposed construction of the Multiplex, there would be a distance of more than 61 metres. In our opinion, this argument is nothing but playing with the words. We reiterate that the distance which is mentioned in the rules as also in the Government circular has to be strictly adhered to. We have no hesitation in our mind in observing that this 61 metres distance has to be between the boundaries of the two plots on which the hospital is standing and on which the multiplex building along with the theatres is to come up. In our opinion, therefore, it would not be possible for the respondents to say that this is not a theatre building but is a commercial complex in which theatres are being constructed or located, may be in a multi storeyed building on the higher floors. We have already observed that construction of a multi storeyed building as a commercial complex cum convention hall cannot be said to be objectionable as permitted by the Development Plan. However, when it relates to the cinema activities and cinema theatre, it has to be objected to on this count. In our opinion convention hall, by no stretch of imagination would include a theatre. Convention hall is also not defined any where. So we have to approach to the dictionary meaning of the word "convention". According to the Chambers 20th Century Dictionary edited by Macdonald (New Edition 1972), Convention means the act of convening an assembly, esp. of representatives or delegates for some common object, any extra ordinary assembly called upon any special occasion, a Parliament not summoned by the sovereign, an assembly for framing or revising a constitution, a meeting of political party delegates for nominating a candidate for the presidency or other purpose, any temporary treaty etc. This clearly means the idea of construction of a convention hall is definitely of an assembling of the people but not for viewing the picture in a theatre. Therefore, it would not be appropriate on the part of the respondents to have theatre or theatres in the building in question under the garb of convention hall. 48. This clearly means the idea of construction of a convention hall is definitely of an assembling of the people but not for viewing the picture in a theatre. Therefore, it would not be appropriate on the part of the respondents to have theatre or theatres in the building in question under the garb of convention hall. 48. Arguments of the respondents that the theatres which are intended to be located are on the 3rd and 4th floor, in our opinion, is of no importance as what is prohibited is the distance between the cinema theatre and the other buildings referred to above. 49. Respondents contended that the building and running of the theatres would cause no disturbance or inconvenience to the hospital and for that purpose it is contended that the building is sound proof and air conditioned. Apprehension of congestion, according to the respondents, also has no force as the theatres are to be run on staggered timings. Whether the construction is air conditioned or not, whether it is sound proof or not, or whether the cinemas will be exhibited in staggered timings, has nothing to do so far as regards contravention of the Government directions in the circular referred to above are concerned. In our opinion, therefore, no cinema theatre or no cinema exhibition in a building is permissible if it is not beyond the distance of 61 metres from those places to which a reference is made earlier such as hospital, school, college etc. It does not make difference whether the Hospital is a Government, Semi Government, a Co-operative or a Trust Hospital. 50. The learned Counsel for the petitioners in both these petitions i.e. Shri Sunil Manohar in Writ Petition No. 2697/2002 and Shri Shashank Manohar in Writ Petition No. 3556/2002 invited our attention to other inconvenience and problems which are likely to be there if the Multiplex is allowed permitting exhibition of cinema. 50. The learned Counsel for the petitioners in both these petitions i.e. Shri Sunil Manohar in Writ Petition No. 2697/2002 and Shri Shashank Manohar in Writ Petition No. 3556/2002 invited our attention to other inconvenience and problems which are likely to be there if the Multiplex is allowed permitting exhibition of cinema. During the course of the arguments, the learned Advocates for the petitioners in both these petitions referred to very many institutions nearby the proposed site, situation of the site on the main roads and junction thereof and other very many problems such as existence of old theatre on the other side of the road, Veterinary Hospital just opposite the proposed multiplex, location of thickly populated area just behind the proposed site, running of Nag River (hereinafter referred to as a 'Canal" for the purposes of brevity) causing obstruction to the natural flow of the water location of the very many schools just very close to the proposed site and importance of the roads from the traffic point of view as both the roads crossing there happened to be the main link roads in the town. We have taken into consideration this argument and we ourselves expressed desire to get satisfied about this argument when it was argued on behalf of the respondents that erection of the proposed building and the theatres therein is not going to cause any inconvenience to the public. With the parties and their learned Advocates, we visited the spot on October 8th, 2002 along with the ministerial staff of this Court. At the time of inspection, necessary arrangements were made for inspection of the site with due police protection. Position on the spot was jotted down a copy of which we have placed on the record of this petition. 51. After visiting the spot, we saw the site in question which is just on the bank of the canal. The fact remains that it flows all through the year and particularly in rainy reasons there is heavy flow of water. It is suggested by the respondents and we actually saw that in the bed of the river, there are 14 cement concrete pillars which were being raised for covering the nullah by a cement concrete slab. The place will be utilized for parking purposes. It is suggested by the respondents and we actually saw that in the bed of the river, there are 14 cement concrete pillars which were being raised for covering the nullah by a cement concrete slab. The place will be utilized for parking purposes. On the eastern side as also on the southern side, there will be two gates and on the northern side also there will be a gate for an egress and ingress. We have seen that the site in question is just on the nook or the crossing of two main roads, i.e. North Ambazari Road and East High Court road. Both these roads are over-crowded by pedestrains and vehicular movements. These two roads are main link roads in the city. What we have observed during the visit to the site is that if the flow of the public is released from the complex, it is bound to enter on East High Court road causing congestion on road particularly when the opening of the main gate of the compound wall of the premises will be very close to the square on which heavy traffic is generally there and particularly between 9.30 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. and 3.30 p.m. till late in the evening. This East High Court road is commonly known as V.I.P. road. On the southern side of the proposed site, the canal flows which is as observed above is proposed to be covered by putting a slab thereon. On the south east corner also there is a small square which is formed because of crossing of the East High Court road and the Canal road. East High Court road is one of the main link roads joining the north and the south Nagpur. Just on the southern bank of the river and behind the proposed site, residential locality known as Ramdaspeth, Kachipura thickly populated areas are situated. On the northern side of the site in question, a very wide road joining east and west Nagpur upto Hingna Industrial Estate is there which is known as North Ambazari Road, one of the major link roads in the city. It connects two major markets in the town as also a heavy traffic is always there. On this North Ambazari road, various educational institutions are within the close vicinity of the proposed site. It connects two major markets in the town as also a heavy traffic is always there. On this North Ambazari road, various educational institutions are within the close vicinity of the proposed site. On the spot we gathered the information through the parties that Hadas High School, Dharampeth High School, Paranjape Vidyalaya, University Library, Veterinary Hospital are there. On the western side of the site in question immediately adjoining is the Nagpur Nagrik Sahakari Rugnalaya and thereafter Kusumtai Wankhede Hall and beyond that Dharampeth High School, Chomedia High School are there. We were told that and we have ourselves witnessed as it was the rush time of closing of the schools, offices as also closing time of the matinee show in Alankar Theatre, the roads were virtually overcrowded and because of the traffic signal on the square, when the traffic is required to stop, it creates havoc congestion on the road. School going boys and girls right from Nursery to the grown up boys of the Colleges were passing through the roads either on foot, bicycles, motorcycles, autorickshaws, man driven rickshaws and buses. In addition to this if the theatres come up on the proposed, site, naturally and we cannot forget that many petty businessman such as hawkers, pan shop owners, cycle and motor cycle repairing centres are bound to mushroom there so as to add to the crowd endangering the life of people. This possibility appeared to have not been taken into consideration by the respondents while allowing cinema theatres on the spot in question. It is tried to be argued on behalf of the respondents that the capacity of each theatre does not exceed 300 and the total capacity in no cause would exceed 1000. We visualized the situation when we were on the site in question and forgetting even about the other visitors to the complex, if the crowd of 1000 only is let in or is let out, what a picture it would create particularly when the openings from the theatres will be just very close to the square to which we have referred to. As it is, we are facing the problem of tremendous pollution i.e. air and sound both. What pitiable condition would be of the patients in the hospital next to the building has just to be imagined. As it is, we are facing the problem of tremendous pollution i.e. air and sound both. What pitiable condition would be of the patients in the hospital next to the building has just to be imagined. The congestion on the roads is likely to result in prevention of immediate medical facilities if the patients are required to be rushed through this road for immediate medical attendance to the hospital. Court cannot forget having come across such cases wherein because of the blockage of the traffic for whatsoever reasons it may be, the needy patients whose cases could be said to be of an emergency, could not be reached to the hospitals in time. Many have lost their examinations, may have missed their trains and flights. On the site in question, we have noticed that none of the main gates which will be opening on the North Ambazari Road and East High Court Road would be beyond the distance of 100 metres from the square. We feel that the authorities concerned have not taken these aspects into consideration at all. However, the argument is there that when commercial complex is being allowed, then theatres also should be allowed. We are not in a position to accept this argument. In commercial complex the very many activities are referred to are likely to go on but in none of those premises at a time there would be such a huge flow of the people either inside or outside at one time. For those facilities, people do not go at one time that too at a fixed or selected time. 52. Shri Sunil Manohar, the learned Advocate for the petitioner further drew our attention to another important aspect that if the pillars are erected in the bed of the river and natural flow of the water is obstructed and particularly in rainy reasons, that is likely to cause havoc because of the obstruction created to the natural flow of the water. If there is an obstruction in the natural flow of the water, water is bound to accumulate as back water and if it overflows the bank, it is bound to enter into the residential localities which are on the lower side of the site in question. If there is an obstruction in the natural flow of the water, water is bound to accumulate as back water and if it overflows the bank, it is bound to enter into the residential localities which are on the lower side of the site in question. These aspects after having visualized by us on the spot, we sought for the explanation during the course of the argument, if the opinion of the Pollution Control Board from this particular point of view was obtained. We see that this aspect of pollution and the disastrous situation which the locality is likely to face appeared to have not been taken into consideration at all. The construction for this bizarre plan though is flagged of by the then Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State, we are doubtful whether these aspects were considered by the authorities concerned before conducting Bhoomipujan as alleged by the respondents. Though the people in general and of the nearby locality in particular, today appeared to have not been aware of the disastrous situation that may fall on them, however, in our opinion, this decrying nature of the project so far as it relates to theatre cannot be lost sight of. Through this petition, we read an angry message sent on behalf of the people, though the general public generally do not get up from its sleep unless it is scorched and scratched by it. We are, therefore, of the clear opinion and in unambiguous words feel it necessary to mention that the construction proposed precisely for the theatres under the aegis of the respondents No. 1 to 3 appeared to be without any proper assessment including that of environmental problems, the impact thereof on the nearby localities and the heavy traffic on the road. There does not appear to be any application of mind towards these problems and if it results otherwise, one cannot just think of or cannot visualize as to what will be the disastrous scene. Shri Sunil Manohar, the learned Advocate for the petitioner pointed out that if the water is accumulated behind the complex building, the back water is bound to wash away all those localities till the Corporation Colony and Verma Lay out which all are on low level. We have to observe that these aspects do definitely need consideration when the matter is brought to the notice of the Court. We have to observe that these aspects do definitely need consideration when the matter is brought to the notice of the Court. In our opinion even the respondent authorities have not taken into consideration the river hydrology. Here we remember a Hebrew proverb which is "where there is no vision, the people perish". Courts are the best sources to search out whether the vision in the matter is lacking or not. 53. Argument on behalf of the respondents that it will add to the beautification of the city, additional amenities and recreational places will be provided to the people at one place, no doubt per se appeared to be appealing and no one can in the ordinary course have objection therefor. However, that has to be strictly keeping in view the public interest at large. During the course of argument it was pointed out that there are other multiplexes which are likely to come up in the city. Whatsoever multiplexes may come up for beautification of the city, the Court is not concerned with the same. The Court is concerned only with its construction in accordance with the Rules and Regulations. We are not concerned even if the city is mushroomed with the multiplexes. We know that such multiplexes are likely to provide and function as one stop entertainment centres instead of just being an exhibition centre, but we cannot forget that if these things are brought to the notice of the Court, they are to be viewed at a micro level. Public interest and public safety has to overweigh the beautification of the township. We are not much impressed by the argument of the respondents that it will be of its first or second of its type in the country and may add to the commercial importance of the city. 54. In the circumstances, the construction in question so far as it relates to the running of the cinema in the Commercial Complex-cum-Convention Centre/Hall, will have to be held in controvention of the Rules and Regulations and hence not permissible. For the rest of the construction, we see that there is no substance in the objections raised by the petitioners. Both the petitions are party allowed. Rule in the above terms. No costs. Petitions allowed partly. -----