Judgment :- 1. These writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records to quash the proceedings GO (D) No. 448, dated 28.4.2010 & G.O.(D)No.436, dated 26.4.2010 on the file of the first respondent and further direct the first respondent to revise the admission rate as requested in the revision petition dated 5.12.2008. W.P.No.13851 of 2010 has been filed challenging the G.O.(D) No. 448 dated 29/4/2010 whereby the application seeking exemption from condition No.1 prescribed in G.O(D)No.1265, dated 31.12.2006 has been rejected. In this Writ Petition G.O.No.436 dated 26.04.2010 has also been challenged. 2. W.P.No.13852 of 2010 has been filed challenging the G.O.No. 448, dated 28.4.2010 whereby the request to increase the rates of admission has been rejected and to direct the first respondent to revise the admission rate as requested in the revision petition. 3. The petitioners in both writ petition are one and the same. Petitioner is a cinema theatre by name and style New Theatres Carnatic, Talkies Private Limited established more than 75 years ago in the heart of Coimbatore City. It has the seating capacity of 973 seats. The theatre has been upgraded and additional facilities and equipments have been provided conforming to world class standard as mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.1265 Home (Cinema) Department dated 31.12.2006. Thereupon, the petitioner sought for revision of the rates by letter dated 12.2.2008 relying upon the G.O.Ms.No.1265 Home (Cinema) Department dated 31.12.2006. This was rejected by the licensing authority/ District Collector on 26.2.2008 stating that the request of the petitioner cannot be considered as the theatre does not have two Air conditioned screen, which is one of the conditions specified in G.O.Ms.No.1265 Home (Cinema) Department dated 31.12.2006. Challenging the same, a revision was filed before the Additional Commissioner (Cinema and Irrigation)I and Administration Department, Chennai.5, who by an order dated 11.11.2008, rejected the request of the petitioner only on the ground that the theatre did not have more than one air conditioned screen. Against which, a revision was filed to the first respondent/ Government in terms of Rule 83 1A(a) of the Act. The first respondent called for remarks from the District Collector. A detailed remark was submitted by the District Collector in D.O.Ref.No.25821 of 2008, dated 8.9.2009, the details of the same will be considered later. Against which, a revision was filed to the first respondent/ Government in terms of Rule 83 1A(a) of the Act. The first respondent called for remarks from the District Collector. A detailed remark was submitted by the District Collector in D.O.Ref.No.25821 of 2008, dated 8.9.2009, the details of the same will be considered later. Thereupon, the first respondent rejected the revision only on the ground that the requirement of G.O. has not been complied with by providing two Air Conditioned Screen and the tariff revision indicated in the above said G.O. is applicable only for multiplexes i.e. theatres having more than one screen. The request was therefore rejected. Challenging the same, the present writ petitions have been filed. Before the order under revision could be passed by the Government , an independent request was made to the licensing authority and a representation was also given on 21.11.2008 seeking exemption in respect of condition No.1 prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.1265 Home (Cinema) Department dated 31.12.2006 on the ground that the Government has been taking a lenient view insofar as the revision of rates is concerned on case to case basis. Government has granted exemption in favour of one Maharaja Theme Parks and Resorts relaxing the condition contained in G.O.Ms.No.1265 Home (Cinema) dated 31.12.2006. A specific G.O. Ms.No.242 Home (Cinema) dated 13.2.2008 was issued by the very same authority of the Government granting exemption from one of the conditions (i.e.) relating to number of seats and the revision of rates was granted. Reliance is placed on paragraph 5 of the said G.O., which reads as follows:- "The Government have examined the request of the Managing Director, Maharaja theme Park and Resorts in detail in the light of remarks of the licensing authority and the Coimbatore District Collector. The Government after careful consideration have decided to accept the request of the Managing Director, Maharaja Theme Park and Resorts considering that the two theatres satisfy all the conditions prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.1265, Home (Cinema-1) Department, dated 31.12.2006 except the condition that the total number of seats shall be not less than 800. The Government after careful consideration have decided to accept the request of the Managing Director, Maharaja Theme Park and Resorts considering that the two theatres satisfy all the conditions prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.1265, Home (Cinema-1) Department, dated 31.12.2006 except the condition that the total number of seats shall be not less than 800. They accordingly direct that the condition that the number of seats in the multiplex should be not less than 800 prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.1265 Home (Cinema-I) Department, dated 31.12.2006 be relaxed in favour of the multiplex theatres inside the Maharaja Theme Parks and Resort, Coimbatore, so as to enable to fix the rates of admission to these theatres as per the orders issued in the said G.O." (emphasis supplied) Since exemption was given relaxing one or other conditions, the petitioner pleads for similar relief. 4. The petitioner's application to Government for exemption as in the case of Maharaja Theme Park was considered in the light of the recommendations made by the District Collector dated 8.9.2009. However, the request for exemption from condition No.1 was declined primarily on the ground that the revision petition filed by the Managing Director was already rejected in G.O.(D)No.448 Home (Cinema) Department, dated 28.4.2010 and therefore, the present application is also rejected. Paragraphs 4,5, and 6 of the said G.O., which gives the reason for refusing to relax the condition reads as follows:- "(4). This matter has been examined in detail. According to class (gg) of rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1957 "Multiplex" means the building wherein a minimum of two theatres together with or without multi activities on commercial basis or with Malls. The condition that there shall be a minimum of two theatres is one of the important conditions prescribed by the Government and the higher rates of admission were given only for multiplexes. As such, the New Theatres Carnatic Talkies (P) Limited which is a single theatre cannot be allowed to fix the rates applicable to Multiplexes by relaxing the condition. (5). Further, the Government, in G.O.(D)No.436, Home (cinema) Department dated 26.4.2010 have rejected the revision petition filed by the Managing Director of the same theatre to increase the rates of admission to his theatre as per G.O.Ms.No.1265 Home (Cinema) Department, dated 31.12.2006 by relaxing the condition No.1 that there shall be two or more fully air conditioned theatres as stipulated in the above said G.O. (6). The Government after careful consideration have therefore, decided to reject the request and accordingly reject the request of the Director, the New Theatres Carnatic Talkies (P) Limited, Coimbatore for relaxation of the condition No.1 that there shall be two or more fully air conditioned theatres prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.1265 Home (Cinema) Department, dated 31.12.2006 for fixation of rates of admission to multiplexes and to revise the rates of admission of the said theatre as per said G.O." 5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that G.O.Ms.No.1265, dated 31.12.2006 is more in the nature of an administrative order granting certain benefits to theatre owners, who provide world class facility to theatre going public on certain parameters. He referred to the various provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cinema Regulation Act and stated that the Government has been time and again considering the claims of individual theatre owners on case to case basis and granting exemptions keeping in mind the object of the G.O. to provide world class facility to the theatre going public. He contended that exemption should be given to the petitioner, who has more number of seats compared to all other theatres in Coimbatore City and has also provided world class facility. If exemption is granted to theatres with lesser seats that what is prescribed in G.O., then on the same analogy exemption can be given to petitioner, who has the maximum number of seats with world class facility. 6. Rule 83 1A of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas Regulation Rules gives the power to the licensing authority to fix the actual rate of admission to each class of accommodation and that is based on the amenities provided in the theatre and also taking into consideration the rates of admission in similar localities within his jurisdiction and based on other relevant factors. Clause 1A(c) provides for increase of rate of admission on all classes except last class after giving notice to the licensing authority and Commercial Taxes Authority subject to certain limits. 7. Rule 83 1A(d) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas Regulation Rules gives the Government a right to pass orders on general revision of rates of admission for theatres considering the over all escalation of cost in all spheres relating to running of theatres. Such power can be exercised either suo motu or on receipt of applications. 7. Rule 83 1A(d) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas Regulation Rules gives the Government a right to pass orders on general revision of rates of admission for theatres considering the over all escalation of cost in all spheres relating to running of theatres. Such power can be exercised either suo motu or on receipt of applications. It is under this power, that the G.O.Ms.No.1265, Home (Cinema-I) Department dated 31.12.2006 came to be passed. On going through G.O.Ms.No.1265, Home (Cinema-I) Department dated 31.12.2006, it is clear that certain conditions have been prescribed, which are implemented by the theatre owners for getting the benefit of revision of rates considering the cost of developing infrastructure and the world class amenities provided. This G.O. no doubt prescribes certain parameters but in exercise of the power under Rule 83 1A (c), the Government has the power suo motu or on an application to revise or modify the rates or grant exemption and that is evident from the exemption order granted in favour of the another theatre in G.O.Ms.No.242, dated 13.2.2008 viz., in the case Maharaja theme parks and resorts limited. The very same Officer of the Government relaxed the condition on number of seats in G.O.Ms.No.1265 Home, dated 31.12.2006 inspite of the fact that the said theatre had only 246 seats as against the prescribed limit of 800 seats. It, therefore, follows that complying with all conditions is not mandatory. The government thought it fit to prescribe certain conditions as a general rule for extending additional benefits to theatre owners. 8. The first respondent considered the remarks of the District Collector, Coimbatore while granting such exemption in the referred case. In the present case also, it could be seen that the District Collector has submitted his remarks and recommendations in proceedings D.O.Ref.No.25821/08/E2, dated 8.9.2009. The District Collector has emphasized the need to adopt a liberal policy to encourage all theatres without any discrimination so long as the general condition in providing the world class facility is satisfied. He also recommended the case of the petitioner stating that all other requirements of G.O.Ms.No.1265, dated 31.12.2006 has been complied with except the conditions relating to two air condition screen. This assumes relevance considering the fact that the theatre in this case is very old and has a very large seating capacity, i.e., more than the prescribed limit. However, it has been upgraded to world class facility. This assumes relevance considering the fact that the theatre in this case is very old and has a very large seating capacity, i.e., more than the prescribed limit. However, it has been upgraded to world class facility. The report of the Collector speaks for it. 9. The right to exempt from any one of the conditions contained in G.O.Ms.No.1265, dated 31.12.2006 is the prerogative of the Government and not with the licensing authority or the Appellate Authority. To that extent, the petitioner approached to the licensing authority for exemption is not correct. Therefore, the rejection of the revision is justified. The challenge to the said G.O. fails. However, the rejection of the petitioner's application seeking exemption from condition No.1 of G.O.Ms.No.1265, dated 31.12.2006 appears to be totally arbitrary and without application of mind. Merely because the revision has been rejected that by itself is not a ground to reject the application. The other parameters relevant has to be considered as in the case of another theatre. Exception should be considered without discrimination. 10. The various provisions of the Cinema Regulation Rules clearly emphasize the need for revision of rates based on facilities and amenities provided by the theatre. This clearly would go to show that each case should be considered on its merits and the facilities provided will have to be considered in the light of G.O.Ms.No.1265, dated 31.12.2006 for grant of exemption. 11. In this case, the Court finds that in respect of one theatre, inspite of non compliance of condition No.2 relating to number of seats, the Government thought it fit to grant exemption considering the other amenities and facilities provided by the said theatre. As in the referred case, the District Collector in this case has clearly stated that the petitioner has satisfied all the conditions to classify it as a world class theatre except the condition relating to two air conditioned screens. In the present case, it is not disputed that the theatre has 976 seats, which is over and above the maximum number of 800 seats as per the G.O. 1265, dated 31.12.2006. This was not considered by the Authority. Further more, the petitioner- theatre is situated in the heart of city of Coimbatore. Apparently, the relative costs on all aspects will be much more than what is available in Rural areas. This should have been considered by the first respondent. This was not considered by the Authority. Further more, the petitioner- theatre is situated in the heart of city of Coimbatore. Apparently, the relative costs on all aspects will be much more than what is available in Rural areas. This should have been considered by the first respondent. To refurbish a large theatre of this extent and to bring it to world class standard, it requires greater investment and that should be considered in the light of the provisions of the Act, which provides for revision of rates and the beneficial government order. 12. When revision of rates can be granted in respect of a theatre in the Rural area by giving exemption, whether the Government can take a converse stand insofar as a city theatre is a poser to the very same officer, who granted benefit to one theatre by granting exemption and declined it to the petitioner. The rejection of the petitioner's claim for revision of rates in respect of the theatre situate in Coimbatore City Corporation appears to be without proper appreciation of the claim besides being arbitrary and discriminatory. 13. In view of the above, the Government Order in G.O.(D)No. 448, dated 28.4.2010 refusing to grant exemption is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Government for reconsideration of the issue for grant of exemption from condition No.1. 14. Since this Court has held that exemption or revision sought for before the original authority is not correct, the rejection of revision is upheld and the writ petition challenging the G.O.Ms.No.436, dated 26.4.2010 is dismissed. 15. The fact that in G.O.Ms.No.436 dated 26.4.2010 the revision was rejected and Writ Petition challenging it is dismissed should not be an impediment in considering the claim for exemption as it is an independent claim. 16. The Government is required to hear and pass final order on the exemption application expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 17. In the result, W.P.No. 13851 of 2010 is allowed by way of remand. W.P.No. 13852 of 2010 is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.