JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. : Petitioner No.2 is the Director of peti¬tioner No.1. Both the petitioners have filed this writ applica¬tion challenging the order dated 25.10.2005 passed by the Collec¬tor-cum-District Magistrate, Jajpur in Annexure-7 granting per¬mission to the opposite party No.7 for running a Cinema Hall in Jajpur Road. 2. The case of the petitioners is that opposite party No.7 submitted an application for grant of license to run a Cinema Hall within vicinity of Jajpur Road Town/Vyasnagar Municipality Area/Kalinga Nagar Development Authority Area in contravention of the provisions of Orissa Cinemas (Regulations) Rules, 1964 and, therefore, his application could not have been entertained for grant of license.It is also alleged in the writ application that procedure laid down under Rule 8 of the aforesaid Rules had not been followed at all before either granting permission to the opposite party No.7 for construction of the Cinema Hall or for grant of license to run a Cinema Hall. Contravention of provi¬sions of the aforesaid Rules have been indicated in the writ application. On the basis of above, the petitioners pray for quashing of Annexure-7. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party No.1 wherein it is stated that opposite party No.7 filed an application on 20.4.1998 for grant of license for running a Cinema Hall at Jajpur Road with all required documents in terms of the aforesaid Rules. After receipt of the application, the Board, which was formed under Rule 2(a) of the said Rules, was asked to furnish opinion after due enquiry. The Members of the Board submitted their individual opinions and on the basis of the opinions received from the Members of the Board, recommendation was made to the Licensing Authority for grant of permission for construction of the Cinema Hall and ultimately, a license was issued. The opposite party No.7 has also filed a counter affida¬vit almost adopting the stand taken by the opposite party No.1. 4. Since petitioners allege that there has been contraven¬tion of Rule 8 of the aforesaid Rules, the learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 was directed to produce the records to find out as to whether there has been any violation or not. Rule 8(1) of the aforesaid Rules provides that Licensing authori¬ty shall invite applications twice in a year, once in January and again in July from persons intending to construct Cinema Houses. Rule 8(1) of the aforesaid Rules provides that Licensing authori¬ty shall invite applications twice in a year, once in January and again in July from persons intending to construct Cinema Houses. Such persons shall submit their applications with enclosures as mentioned in the said Rules. In this regard, an objection was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Licens¬ing Authority never invited any application and opposite party No.7 on his own submitted an application in the month of April 1998. After receipt of the said application, the matter was placed before the A.D.M. and the A.D.M. directed the opposite party No.7 to submit the application in terms of Rule 8 of the aforesaid Rules enclosing all the required documents. From the record, it appears that the opposite party No.7 submitted the required documents and after receipt of the said documents, an order was passed on 7th June 1999 requesting the Executive Offi¬cer, Jajpur Road Municipality, Tahasildar, Sukinda to submit their opinion. In view of the above, only violation as alleged is that the application had been submitted by the opposite party No.7 on his own and that to in the month of April 1998. There¬fore, the same could not be accepted for consideration. True it is, that the application of the opposite party No.7 was submitted in the month of April, 1998, but same was processed only in June 1999. Therefore, defect, if any, is curable and it cannot be termed as a contravention of the said Rule. 5. The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the Board never met to discuss about the viability of 3rd Cinema Hall in the locality and in absence of any recommendation from the Board, permission had been granted to the opposite party No.7 for construction of the Cinema Hall. Rule 8 (2)(a) of the aforesaid Rules prescribes that there shall be a Board in each district consisting of the Licensing Authority, the Superintendent of the Police, the Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings, Executive Engineer, Public Health Department, the Executive Engineer, Electrical and the Chairman, Improvement Trust or Municipality or N.A.C. or representative of the Special Planning Authority of the area as the case may be. It appears from the record, that the Board had been constituted in terms of the aforesaid Sub-Rule and the Members of the Board were request¬ed to submit their views. It appears from the record, that the Board had been constituted in terms of the aforesaid Sub-Rule and the Members of the Board were request¬ed to submit their views. The Licensing Authority submitted his views on 19.9.2001 stating therein that he has no objection for construction of new Cinema Hall as proposed. The Executive Engi¬neer, Electrical in his report dated 19.10.2001 has intimated that power supply can be effected, if opposite party No.7 agrees to pay the cost of the proposed 11 KV line and substation. The Executive Engineer, (R & B) submitted his opinion in his letter dated 7.11.2001 stating therein that the proposed Hall site is about 200 meters away from the main Bazaar Road and suitably connected to W.B.M. Road and also 500 meters away from Government offices, Institutions and religious places. The said Executive Engineer has also recommended for grant of permission for con¬struction of the Cinema Hall. The Executive Officer of the Vysa¬nagar Municipality submitted his report on 10.10.2001 stating therein that the plot proposed to be used for construction of the Cinema Hall is suitable and there is necessity of 3rd Cinema Hall. The Tahasildar, Sukinda also recommended for opening of a new Cinema Hall. In view of the above Sub-Rule 2(a), it appears to have been substantially complied with. 6. The 3rd point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that before the Board made any recommendation, permission was granted to the opposite party No.7 for construc¬tion of the Cinema Hall. As is evident from the discussion made above, all the opinions were received from the Members of the Board in the year 2001 and permission for construction of the Cinema Hall was issued in April 2002 and this appears to have been done in terms of Rule 8(3)(a) of the aforesaid Rules.This view not only gets support the record indicating views expressed by the Members of the Board but also the order passed by the Collector on 3.4.2002 granting permission for construction of the Cinema Hall. These facts are borne on record. 7. The 4th point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that under Rule 8(2)(d), the Board while making recommendation did not take into consideration the number of Cinema Halls existing within 8 kilometers of the radious of the locality and total population of the area. These facts are borne on record. 7. The 4th point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that under Rule 8(2)(d), the Board while making recommendation did not take into consideration the number of Cinema Halls existing within 8 kilometers of the radious of the locality and total population of the area. On perusal of the view of all the Members of the Board, it appears that though in spe¬cific terms, the population of the area is not mentioned in the views expressed by them, not a single Member has opined not to grant permission for a 3rd Cinema Hall. In course of hearing of the writ application, it was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.7 that there were in fact three Cinema Houses operating in the area and one of them having been closed, there was necessity of 3rd Cinema Hall. This conten¬tion not being refuted, there cannot be any doubt in mind that there was need of a 3rd Cinema Hall in the locality. 8. On perusal of the record, it appears that all the requirements of Rule 8 of the Rules have been substantially followed and one and two minor defects pointed out do not materi¬ally affect the procedure adopted before grant of permission for construction of the Cinema Hall as well as license. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ application and accordingly the writ application is dismissed. 9. In this circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Application dismissed.