Judgment : N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. 1. These writ appeals are preferred by the State of Tamil Nadu against the order of the learned single Judge allowing the writ petitions filed to quash the G.O.Ms.No.44 Home (Cinemas-A) Department, dated 7.1.1991, wherein the respondents who were earlier authorised to issue Structural Soundness Certificates for Cinema Houses, was withdrawn by authorising the Executive Engineer, PWD, to issue such certificates. 2. The case of the respondents herein before the learned single Judge was as follows: (a) The respondents herein/writ petitioners are Engineering Graduates, whose names were included in the panel of Engineers, approved by the Board of Engineers, maintained by the District Collectors, under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Public Buildings (Licensing) Rules, 1966. They were empowered to issue Structural Soundness Certificates to public buildings, which are coming within the definition of the "public buildings" under the said Rules. (b) The Cinema Theatres are not included in the said definition, as the Cinema Theatres are governed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 and the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957. (c) According to the respondents herein, due to dearth of Engineers in Public Works Department in the State, the Cinema Theatre Owners faced serious difficulties in getting Structural Soundness Certificate to Cinema Houses and the Tamil Nadu Exhibitors Association submitted representations to the Government seeking amendment of the Rules empowering the Engineers included in the panel of Engineers, maintained by the District Collectors under the Tamil Nadu Public Buildings (Licensing) Rules, 1966 to issue Structural Soundness Certificate for Cinema Houses under the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957, also. (d) The Government considered the said request and issued G.O.Ms.No.2575 Home Department, dated 16.5.1985 and amended the Rules to the effect that any Engineer included in the panel of Engineers, approved by the Board of Engineers and maintained by the District Collectors can also issue Structural Soundness Certificate under the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957. In view of the said amendment the persons like respondents were empowered to inspect and issue Structural Soundness Certificates to Cinema Houses also. (e) It is the case of the respondents that there was no complaint against any person, who issued certificates, whose names are also found in the panel. In view of the said amendment the persons like respondents were empowered to inspect and issue Structural Soundness Certificates to Cinema Houses also. (e) It is the case of the respondents that there was no complaint against any person, who issued certificates, whose names are also found in the panel. By G.O.Ms.No.44 Home Department dated 7.1.1991, amendment was issued to the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957, deleting the provisions, which empowered the Engineers including the panel Engineers, maintained by the District Collectors, to issue Structural Soundness Certificates to Cinema Houses. (f) Alleging that the said amendment seriously affected their avocation, the respondents have filed the above writ petitions with the above said prayer contending that the definition of "public buildings" defined in the Tamil Nadu Public Buildings (Licensing) Act, 1965, is an inclusive definition and excluding Cinema Theatres, which are also public buildings is not justified, the term "engineers" having been defined under the said Act, to mean a person possessing such Engineering qualification as may be prescribed and the District Collectors with the concurrence of the Superintending Engineer, PWD, having prepared the panel empowering to issue Structural Soundness Certificate to any public building, the amendment issued through the impugned Government Order is unreasonable, as it causes hardship to the Theatre owners and the amendment power was exercised in an arbitrary manner by the Government. 3. The said contention raised before the learned single Judge was opposed by the Government by contending that the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, and the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957 are the provisions under which the Government issue licence to Cinema theatres and the Tamil Nadu Public Buildings (Licensing) Act, 1965 and Rules, 1966 cannot be applied, as there is a special enactment to regulate the Cinema Houses. It is the further case of the Government that till 1985, the Executive Engineers of the Public Works Department alone were given power to issue Structrual Soundness Certificates and by G.O.Ms.No.2575 Home (Cinema-A) Department, dated 16.10.1985, the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957 was amended by amending Rules 40, 45 and 92 and the said amendment was withdrawn by the impugned Government Order dated 7.1.1991 on the basis of complaints received by the Executive Engineers, PWD, that the Engineers in the panel have issued certificates stating that the Theatres are structurally sound, even though the buildings were in bad shape and the same was noticed by the Executive Engineer, PWD, and it was felt that in the interest of public safety it will be advisable to eliminate the system of empowering twin authorities to issue Structural Soundness Certificate in respect of Cinema Theatre Buildings and to revert to the original system of allowing the Executive Engineers, PWD alone to issue such certificates. In short, the contention of the Government is that there were indiscriminate issuance of Structural Soundness Certificates by the panel Engineers, even though Buildings were in bad shape and bearing in mind the public safety, the power given to the panel Engineers was withdrawn and the original position prevailed prior to amendment issued in the year 1985 was restored only on public interest and by way of policy decision. 4. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions holding that before passing the impugned Government Order/amendment, the Government has not sought for expert opinion as to whether the Structural Soundness Certificate issued by the Panel Engineers can be acted upon for issuing licence to Cinema Theatres and the Government Order do not reveal any material in support of the deletion of the provision, and allowed the writ petitions, which is reported in 1999 (II) CTC 235 (P.Perumal v. State of Tamil Nadu). 5. The said order of the learned single Judge dated 28.4.1999 is challenged in these writ appeals contending that the Cinema Theatre/Houses is a class by itself and it cannot be included in the definition of the term "public buildings" as defined under Section 2(8) of the Tamil Nadu Public Buildings (Licensing) Act, 1965, and the Rules, 1966 framed thereunder. 6. The said order of the learned single Judge dated 28.4.1999 is challenged in these writ appeals contending that the Cinema Theatre/Houses is a class by itself and it cannot be included in the definition of the term "public buildings" as defined under Section 2(8) of the Tamil Nadu Public Buildings (Licensing) Act, 1965, and the Rules, 1966 framed thereunder. 6. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant submitted that an experiment was made empowering the panel Engineers also to issue Structural Soundness Certificate to Cinema Houses by amending the Rules in the year 1985 and there was a deficiency in the working of the said empowerment. The said power was withdrawn by the impugned Government Order as a matter of policy, bearing in mind the public interest/public safety and the writ petitioners/respondents herein cannot compel the Government to empower them also to issue Structural Soundness Certificate to Cinema Houses, particularly when they are having any vested right to issue such certificates. The empowerment having been misused by panel Engineers, which was noticed by the Executive Engineer, PWD, the Government had taken the said policy decision, and the same cannot be questioned by the respondents, by primarily contending that there may be hardship to the Theatre Owners in getting Structural Soundness Certificate on time, as number of Theatres in Tamil Nadu exceeds 2,500. 7. Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents herein on the other hand submitted that the respondents are qualified Engineers, who are competent to issue Structural Soundness Certificate to any public building, and curtailing their power to issue certificates to Cinema Theatres is affecting their rights and it is an arbitrary exercise of power, without any reason. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the number of Theatres being more and the number of Executive Engineers in PWD are less, the Theatre Owners are put to serious difficulties in getting Structural Soundness Certificates for getting Cinema Licences/for renewal of Cinema Licences, and therefore the impugned decision is unreasonable and is causing hardship not only to the respondents, but also to the Cinema Theatre owners and as such, the learned single Judge was justified in quashing the impugned order. The learned Senior Counsel also relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2007) 3 SCC 365 (State of Kerala v. Unni) in support of his contentions and prayed for dismissing the writ appeals. 8. The learned Senior Counsel also relied on the Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2007) 3 SCC 365 (State of Kerala v. Unni) in support of his contentions and prayed for dismissing the writ appeals. 8. We have considered the rival submissions of the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. 9. The issue to be decided in these writ appeals is as to whether the Government was justified in amending the Rule divesting the power given to the panel Engineers from issuing Structural Soundness Certificates to Cinema Houses/Theatres by the impugned amendment issued on 7.1.1991. 10. The respondents are private Engineers. Their names are said to be placed in the panel prepared by the District Collectors, after being recommended by the Superintending Engineers of PWD for the purpose of issuing Structural Soundness Certificates, as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Public Buildings (Licensing) Act, 1965 and Rules, 1966. Section 2(8) defines "public building" as follows: "2(8) "Public building" means any building, (a) used as a (i) school (including a tutorial school) or college (including a tutorial college) or University or other educational institution; (ii) hostel; (iii) library; (iv) hospital, nursing home, dispensary, clinic or maternity centre; (v) club; (vi) lodging house, boarding house or hotel; or (vii) choultry; (b) ordinarily used for public meeting or for celebrating marriage functions for or holding parties." "Engineer" is defined under section 2(3) of the Act, which reads as follows: "2(3) "engineer" means any person possessing such engineering qualifications as may be prescribed." From the perusal of the above definition of "public buildings" under the Tamil Nadu Public Buildings (Licensing) Act, 1965, it is evident that Cinema Houses/Theatres are not included in the said definition, though the said definition is an inclusive definition. In the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, Section 2(5) defines "place", which reads as follows: "2(5) "place" includes a house, building, tent and any description of transport, whether by water, land or air." "Auditorium" is defined under Rule 3(c) of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957, which reads thus, "3(c) "Auditorium" means the portion of licensed place in which accommodation is provided for the public to view the cinematograph exhibition" Rule 3(e) defines "enclosure", which reads as follows, "3(e) "enclosure" means the portion of the licensed place in which cinematograph apparatus is erected." "Permanent building" is defined under Rule 3(h), which reads thus, "3(h) "Permanent building" means a building which is constructed for permanent use with stone brick, mortar, cement or other non inflammable material." On a perusal of the above provisions of the Tamil Nadu Public Buildings (Licensing) Act, 1965 and the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 and the Rules framed thereunder in each of the enactment, it could be seen that "Cinema Houses" are dealt with separately, having regard to the nature of the buildings as well as the purpose for which the buildings are used. In Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957, certain restrictions are imposed, having regard to the safety measures, which reads as follows: "12(1) Smoking shall not be permitted within the enclosure or within the auditorium. (2) No unauthorised person shall be allowed to enter the enclosure. (3) No inflammable article shall unnecessarily be taken into, or allowed to remain in the enclosure. (4) The licensee shall keep the cinema buildings and equipment insured against the risk of fire so that the cinema theatre is run without fire hazards. (5) The licensee shall put up at prominent places in and immediately outside any projection or rewinding room or in any room in which the films is stored or in which electrical batteries are installed or charged notice indicating that "smoking" is strictly prohibited." Thus, it is amply established that Cinema Houses are separate class itself and more vigil is required to ensure safety of the cinema going public and other sections of the public nearby, and the buildings are specially designed in such a manner to ensure special safety and as per rules. Similarly, in section 5(2)(b), a condition is imposed to the Licensing Authority to satisfy as to whether adequate precautions have been taken in the place, in respect of which licence is to be granted, to provide for the safety, convenience and the comfort of the persons attending exhibitions therein. Under Section 5-A of the Act, even for construction and reconstruction of the Cinema Houses, permission has to be obtained from the Licensing Authority viz., the District Collector, which is not required for constructing other buildings, such as marriage halls and other public buildings as defined under section 2(8) of the Tamil Nadu Public Buildings (Licensing) Act, 1965. 11. It is to be noted at this juncture that Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, was enacted in the year 1955 and the Rules were framed in the year 1957 by the Tamil Nadu Government, which is ten years prior to the enactment of the Tamil Nadu Public Buildings (Licensing) Act, 1965 and Rules, 1966. Thus, while enacting the latter Act, viz., Tamil Nadu Pubilc Buildings (Licensing) Act, 1965, the Legislature was fully aware of the fact that Cinema Theatres (Buildings) are governed under the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 and Rules, 1957, and the Legislature purposefully excluded the "Cinema Halls" within the definition of "Pubic Buildings". Thus, the contention of the respondents that "public buildings" include "Cinema Houses" cannot be accepted. 12. It is an admitted case of the respondents that till 1985 the panel Engineers were not empowered to issue Structural Soundness Certificates to Cinema Houses and by considering the representation made by the Cinema Theatre owners in the year 1985, the Government thought fit to empower the private Engineers (panel Engineers) also to issue Structural Soundness Certificates to Cinema Houses along with the PWD Engineers to issue such certificates. Thus, it is evident that twin authorities were given such powers from 16.10.1985 to 6.1.1991. 13. The reason for removing the empowerment is clearly stated in the letter of the Government addressed to the Commissioner of Land Administration, Chennai-5, in letter No.1610 Home (Cinema-A) Department, dated 10.7.1990. In the said letter it is stated that the Executive Engineer, PWD, has advised that certain theatres should not be allowed to run shows, because the theatre buildings are in bad shape. However, the Engineers in the panel have issued certificates stating that the above theatres are structurally sound. In the said letter it is stated that the Executive Engineer, PWD, has advised that certain theatres should not be allowed to run shows, because the theatre buildings are in bad shape. However, the Engineers in the panel have issued certificates stating that the above theatres are structurally sound. Thus, there was conflicting information regarding stability of the buildings of particular cinema theatres, and due to the conflicting certificates regarding safety/soundness, the licensing authorities are not in a position, either to allow or deny such theatres to run shows by granting licence. Therefore it was suggested that it will be advisable to eliminate the system of empowering twin authorities to issue Structural Soundness Certificates in respect of Cinema Theatres and to revert back to the original system of allowing the Executive Engineers, PWD alone to issue such certificates. The Government in its wisdom accepted the said suggestion and issued the impugned Government order, primarily on the ground of public safety. In the counter affidavit it is further submitted that in similar matter in W.P.No.3852 of 1991, this Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the very same Government Order on merits by order dated 19.3.1991 and the said order has become final. 14. The issue as to whether the Court can interfere in policy matters and in what circumstances the Court can interfere, is well settled in law. In the decision reported in (1990) 1 SCC 613 (Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India) the Supreme Court held that it is an obligation on the part of the State to protect the rights and privileges of its citizens as their "parens patriae". The said position is reiterated in the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2013) 6 SCC 620 (G.Sundarrajan v. Union of India) to emphasis the role of the State to act in greater welfare of the collective purpose and how the public welfare has been treated to be at the zenith of law. In paragraph 233 of the said Judgment the Supreme Court pointed out as follows, "233. ............... The conscientious and conscious policy decisions by the Government are to be taken with due care and consideration, keeping in mind the welfare of the people at large. In paragraph 233 of the said Judgment the Supreme Court pointed out as follows, "233. ............... The conscientious and conscious policy decisions by the Government are to be taken with due care and consideration, keeping in mind the welfare of the people at large. True it is, when such policies are framed, especially for establishment of nuclear plants or such big projects, the safety measures become the primary concern and the same have to be adequately addressed to and taken care of. However, the courts, in exercise of power of judicial review, cannot assume the role of approving authority for laying safety measures, but, a significant one, what the regulatory authorities have stated are to be regarded as the primary and principal concern." In the said judgment it is further held that if individual interest and public interest are pitted against each other, the Court should lean towards the public interest. 15. The decision cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents reported in (2007) 2 SCC 365 (State of Kerala v. Unni) is for the proposition that if there is any arbitrariness or unreasonableness or unworkability, a provision can be set aside. 16. In this case, as already stated, the Engineers of the PWD alone were authorised to issue Structural Soundness Certificates to Cinema Theatres till 1985 and for a brief period of about five years, the private Engineers (panel Engineers) were also empowered to issue such certificates. Having noticed the indiscriminate issue of Structural Soundness Certificates by the panel Engineers, which was noticed by the Executive Engineers of the PWD, the Government, based on a report sent by the Revisional Authority under the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, thought fit to resort back to the original position, as empowering twin authorities to issue Structural Soundness Certificates has created anomalous situation and public safety was a casualty. In such circumstances, a policy decision was taken by the Government to restore the original position viz, empowering Engineers of PWD alone to issue Structural Soundness Certificates to Cinema Houses. 17. The respondents are not competent to urge that the impugned amendment is creating hardships to the Theatre Owners. The Theatre owners have chosen to challenge the impugned amendment in W.P.No.3852 of 1991, which was dismissed in limine by this Court on 19.3.1991. 17. The respondents are not competent to urge that the impugned amendment is creating hardships to the Theatre Owners. The Theatre owners have chosen to challenge the impugned amendment in W.P.No.3852 of 1991, which was dismissed in limine by this Court on 19.3.1991. The grievance expressed by the respondents is that they are divested of the power to issue Structural Soundness Certificates. The said empowerment having been granted only for about five years and the Government having noticed the misuse of such empowerment by some of the panel Engineers, have taken a conscious decision to promote public safety. Further, the right of the respondents in issuing certificates to other buildings as defined in Public Buildings as per the Tamil Nadu Public Buildings (Licensing) Act, 1965, has not been taken away. Hence there is no irrationality or arbitrariness in the decision taken by the Government. 18. The only reason stated by the learned single Judge to allow the writ petitions is that the Government has not obtained the Expert Opinion before issuing the said amendment. Under Section 9-B of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955, the Government is the Revisional Authority against the orders of the Commissioner of Land Administration, regarding grant of licence/renewal/ suspension/cancellation of licence to Cinema Theatres. During the hearing of the revision, the Secretary to the Government noticed the said indiscriminate issue of Structural Soundness Certificates by panel Engineers and the same was taken as the basis/reason for amending the rules, and therefore there was material available before the Government to take a decision. It is well settled in law that whether the reasons are adequate or not, cannot be gone into by the Courts. It is also not the case of the respondents that the Government is not empowered to take such a decision. Rule making power is vested with the Government under Section 10 of the Act and Section 10(2)(b) provides for the regulation of cinematograph exhibitions for securing the public safety. Thus there is no legal infirmity in the impugned amendment. 19. Considering all the above aspects, we are unable to sustain the common order of the learned single Judge dated 28.4.1999. Consequently both the writ appeals are allowed and the common order of the learned single Judge dated 28.4.1999 reported in 1999 (II) CTC 235 (P.Perumal v. State of Tamil Nadu) is set aside. The writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Considering all the above aspects, we are unable to sustain the common order of the learned single Judge dated 28.4.1999. Consequently both the writ appeals are allowed and the common order of the learned single Judge dated 28.4.1999 reported in 1999 (II) CTC 235 (P.Perumal v. State of Tamil Nadu) is set aside. The writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.