ORDER :- The petitioner, who is the Managing Partner of Mis. Sitara 70 MM theatre, Kalvakunta Village, Sangareddy Mandai and Municipality, Medal District, questions the order of the respondent-Joint Collector, dated 23.3.2004 in proceedings No.C2/CN/1 09/2004 in canceling the "No Objection Certificate" and the construction permission issued earlier vide proceedings dated 22.4.2003 and 31.8.2003 on the ground of violation of the Rule 8(B)(2) of the A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the property in which the cinema theatre is sought to be constructed is situated in Sy.No.224/4 of Kalvakunta Village and it belong to Mis. Srinivass 70 MM, which is a registered partnership firm and subsequently the said firm was reconstituted on 16.4.2003 under the name of Mis. Sitara 70 MM and the petitioner is the Managing Partner of the said reconstituted Firm. 3. It is stated that the earlier firm made an application for the grant of "No Objection Certificate" and pursuant to the said application, the Revenue Divisional Officer called for the objections from all the general public and also report from the concerned authorities, and accordingly submitted his report dated 22.12.1998 to the District Collector, stating that there are no structures connected with religious or charitable institutions, schools or colleges, and accordingly recommended for grant of "No Objection Certificate". As the land was in the residential use zone, an application was made for the change of the land use to Central Commercial Zone, and the Municipal Council, Sangareddy by a Resolution No.42, dated 29.11.1997, approved for change of the land use by receiving the necessary amount towards development charges and the Government ultimately changed the land use to Central Commercial Zone and published the same in the A.P. Extraordinary Gazette dated 2.6.2000. 4. It is stated that the Licensing Authority-Joint Collector granted "No Objection Certificate" on 22.4.2003 under Rule 8(B) of the Rules for construction of a permanent theatre. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application along with building plans for grant of permission under Rule 9 of the said Rules and after necessary enquiry and inspection, the pem1ission was also granted for construction of the building, vide proceedings dated 31.8.2003. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application along with building plans for grant of permission under Rule 9 of the said Rules and after necessary enquiry and inspection, the pem1ission was also granted for construction of the building, vide proceedings dated 31.8.2003. The petitioner started construction of the building, and when the construction was almost completed, the impugned order has been passed, canceling "No Objection Certificate" as well as the construction permission, on a complaint said to have been made by Mr. Mohd. Ghoush AU Baba dated 23.12.2003 stating that a Mosque is situated within the prohibited distance of 182 metres. 5. It is stated that the said Mosque people filed suit O.S. No.658/2003 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy for grant of injunction, and the interim injunction application filed in LA. 1605/2003 in as. 658/2003 was dismissed on 8.4.2004. Having failed to get injunction order, the said alleged Mosque people brought influence on the Licensing Authority and the Licensing Authority erroneously cancelled the "No Objection Certificate" as well as the construction permission. The petitioner questions the said order. 6. A counter has been filed by the Joint Collector, stating that on filing of the application by the present petitioner on 21.3.2003 for the construction of M/s. Sitara 70 MM Theatre in Sy.No.224 of Kalvakunta under Sangareddy Municipality, after getting all the required reports from the different officers, "No Objection Certificate" was issued vide proceedings dated 22.4.2003 and the construction permission was als, given to the said theatre by proceeding dated 31.8.2003. It is stated that one Mohd. Chouse Ali Baba of Sangareddy mad, a representation on 8.12.2003 stating tha there is a Mosque nearby the propose theatre and the Muslims are attending the prayer in the Mosque and request to cancel the "No Objection Certificate' already issued by the Joint Collector. It is stated that on the said complaint, the Join Collector along with Revenue Divisional Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer. Sangareddy have inspected the site and found that there is a Mosque and other educational institutions and a Temple are existing within 182 metres from the theatre and hence in view of the existence of Mosque, educational institutions and a Temple within 182 metres from the Theatre, which would lead to communal disturbances, the ''No Objection Certificate" and construction permission already granted were cancelled on 23.3.2004. 7. 7. It is further stated that as per the report of the Municipal Commissioner, Sangareddy, the Masjid building by name Masjid-e-Bismillah which is situated at Jalal Bagh is not covered by the approved layout and the site falls in the residential area as per the sanctioned Master Plan as approved by G.O. Ms. No.32, Municipal Administration, dated 12.1.1988, and the Municipality has not given any permission for the construction of the said Masjid in Sy.No.224 of Kalvakunta Sivar. It is admitted that the interlocutory application filed by the said Masjid Committee represented by its President Mohd. Khaja, the 2nd respondent herein in LA. 1605/2003 in O.S. 658/2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy against the petitioner's theatre was dismissed on 8.4.2004. 8. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the earlier application made in 1997, all the reports from the concerned have been called for and pursuant to the reports, and as there was a change in the constitution of the Firm and the entire previous firm Mis. Srinivasa 70 MM has been reconstituted as the present firm i.e. M/s. Sitara 70 MM w.e.f. 16.4.2003, the "No Objection Certificate" was granted on 22.4.2003 pursuant to the earlier application made in 1997 and the subsequent reminder made on 21.3.2003. It is stated that as on the date of the inspection and the grant of "No Objection Certificate" and also grant of permission to construct cinema "e theatre, there were no any educational If institutions, hospitals and places of worship and after satisfying that the proposed site in which theatre was proposed to be constructed was in accordance with the Rules, and therefore, all the concerned authorities have recommended for the grant of "No Objection Certificate". It is stated that construction of Mosque itself is illegal without obtaining any permission and the place of the theatre was converted into Central Commercial Zone and therefore, the subsequent illegal use of the place as a Mosque cannot be considered a place of worship. It is stated that the said Mosque is not at all recognized or registered under the Wakf Act and injunction application filed by them itself was dismissed and therefore, there cannot be any justification on the part of the Joint Collector to cancel the "No Objection Certificate" as well as the construction permission. It is stated that the said Mosque is not at all recognized or registered under the Wakf Act and injunction application filed by them itself was dismissed and therefore, there cannot be any justification on the part of the Joint Collector to cancel the "No Objection Certificate" as well as the construction permission. 10. It is stated that for issue of "No Objection Certificate" for the construction of the cinema theatre, an application shall be made under Rule 8(A) of the Rules and under Rule 8(A)(2)(a)(iii) accompanied by a site plan, indicating the surrounding roads and buildings like schools, hospitals, places of worship and the like, which exist up to a distance of 182 metres to· that site. In the instant case, as it was communicated in the application that no such schools, hospitals, places of worship are situated within a distance of 182 metres of the theatre site, all the concerned authorities have verified, inspected the case and granted ''No Objection Certificate" under Rule 8(B) of the Rules. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application for the grant of permission for construction of the cinema building under Rule 9(A), accompanied by necessary plans, drawings etc. and on perusal of all the specifications, the permission was also granted for construction of the building under Rule 9(B) of the Rules. 11. Once the building permission was granted, it is contended that "No Objection Certificate" cannot be cancelled and so also the building permission unless the particulars furnished by the petitioner are found incorrect or any fraud has been played in obtaining the "No Objection Certificate" as well as the building construction permission. 12. It is stated that the subsequent existence of so called Mosque itself is illegal and it was not there either on the date of the application or at the time of I grant of "No Objection Certificate" as well as grant of construction permission, and therefore, the cancellation of the "No Objection Certificate" as well as the construction permission by the Joint Collector under the impugned order is illegal, unsustainable and contrary to the provisions of the Rules. 13. It is not in dispute that the Mosque was not at all constructed by obtaining any permission. 13. It is not in dispute that the Mosque was not at all constructed by obtaining any permission. Under Municipal Laws a place of worship cannot be constructed without prior permission of the District Collector and the so called Mosque itself was brought into existence without having any permission to construct the building and it is situated within the residential area, whereas the Cinema Theatre is in the Central Commercial Zone. 14. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that it is the duty of the Government to maintain law and order problem, but the authorities cannot allow such things to exist unlawfully objecting the lawful persons who were proceeding the construction of the cinema theatre after getting "No Objection Certificate" and permission to construct the same in accordance with law. 15. I am of the opinion that after the grant of "No Objection Certificate" and construction permission, the petitioner proceeded with the said construction, and even if any educational institutions, place of worship comes into existence at a later point of time, the same cannot operate as violation of such grant of "No Objection Certificate" and construction permission. If the subsequent existence of the place of worship or educational institutions is taken into account, no theatre can exist. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the action of the 1st respondent in cancelling the "No Objection Certificate" and the construction permission is illegal and unsustainable and contrary to the Rules. 16. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, and the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.