JUDGMENT F.M. Reis, J. 1. The Petitioners raised a grievance in public interest with regard to the safety of the citizens of Goa on the basis of a report published in the news paper about a fire which broke out and destroyed one of the twin theatres constructed by he Respondent no. 8 and which was to be inaugurated on 10.11.04. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the Multiplex of the Respondent no. 8 has been given a No Objection Certificate for locating a permanent cinema theatre in the said building in violation of the provisions of the relevant statutes and the Rules. The main concern of the Petitioner is that the Certificate has been issued to the Respondent no. 8 inspite of there being clear objections from the Fire and Emergency Services, (Respondent no. 3 herein). It is further the contention of the Petitioner that the Licensing Authority has been informed by the Respondent no. 3 that the building in question is not recommended for Multiplex as proposed for assembly purpose an that it is not found feasible to issue a No Objection Certificate from the said Directorate. The Petitioner also takes exception to the conduct of the Respondent no. 8 and, as such, he seeks for inquiry to be directed into the manner in which the Respondent no. 2 had issued the concerned certificate. It is further his case that Respondent no. 3 had refused No Objection Certificate for such an activity and that by letter dated 31.08.2004, the Respondent no. 3 has categorically stated that the building in question is not recommended for a Multiplex and it is not feasible to issue the No Objection Certificate. Inspite of such objections, the Respondent no. 2, according to the Petitioner, had granted a no objection certificate under Rule 20 permitting the location of a permanent cinema in the said building. It is further the contention of the Petitioner that even though there is no fire safety norms met for the said building, the Respondent no. 2 has declared that the inauguration of the Multiplex can proceed. As such, the above Petition came to be filed by the Petitioner, inter alia, to quash and set aside the No Objection Certificate issued by the Respondent no. 2 to the Respondent no. 8 with regard to the said theatre. 2. The Respondent no. 2 has declared that the inauguration of the Multiplex can proceed. As such, the above Petition came to be filed by the Petitioner, inter alia, to quash and set aside the No Objection Certificate issued by the Respondent no. 2 to the Respondent no. 8 with regard to the said theatre. 2. The Respondent no. 2 filed their reply, inter alia, stating that the Petition is not maintainable as the whole Petition is on the basis of a newspaper reports. It is further their case that the Petitioner has suppressed material facts by not disclosing the licence dated 04.11.2004 and the corrigendum dated 05.11.2004 issued to the Respondent no. 8 and has misled the Court. It is further their case that the Petitioner has not disclosed that the Multiplex theatre is being made in an already existing building which was constructed prior to the application for licence. It is further their case that No Objection Certificate dated 01.11.2004 issued to the Respondent no. 8 is under the proviso to Cinematography Act, 1952 and the Rules thereunder. It is further their case that the provisions of the National Building Code do not find any place under the said Act and, therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled to challenge the said No Objection Certificate or the permission granted by the Respondent no. 2 to the Respondent no. 8. It is further their case that the Respondent no. 8 had obtained permission under Rule 17 on 23.03.2004 for Exhibition of films Licence under Rule 20 of the Goa Cinematography Rules 1965. The application was, therefore, examined and thereafter referred to the Margao Municipal Council, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Margao and Director of Fire Services. A public notice was also issued in the local news paper with that regard. It is further their case that Director of Fire Services by letter dated 31.08.2004 had communicated their views and the same were brought to the notice of the Respondent no. 8. The No Objection Certificate was also issued by Margao Municipal Council on 05.08.2004, the Superintendent of Police on 20.07.2004, Executive Engineer, PWD on 06.08.2004, Director of Health Services on 30.09.2004 besides the Central Electricity Authority on 30.09.2004. It is further the case of the said Respondent that the procedure in terms of the Rules was duly complied with. 8. The No Objection Certificate was also issued by Margao Municipal Council on 05.08.2004, the Superintendent of Police on 20.07.2004, Executive Engineer, PWD on 06.08.2004, Director of Health Services on 30.09.2004 besides the Central Electricity Authority on 30.09.2004. It is further the case of the said Respondent that the procedure in terms of the Rules was duly complied with. It is further their case that M/s. Heera Films had filed their objection to the application of Respondent, but, however, after the hearing of the said party, the same was rejected by Order dated 29.10.2004. It is further their case that the fire which caught to the auditorium was not during the running of the auditorium or due to not following any provisions. It is further the case that under Section 12 of the Cinematography Act of 1952, the licence can be granted if the Rules are substantially complied with. As such, the said Respondents sought for dismissal of the above Petition. 3. A rejoinder was also filed by the Petitioner to the said affidavit denying the contentions raised by the Respondent no. 2. It was specifically denied that the Petition was filed to further private competitors' interest. He has further stated that he is a spokesperson of a political party which is the main opposition party. He has further stated that the Petitioner is concerned with the life and well being of the fellow citizens and the Petition should protect the fundamental rights of the citizens. 4. The Respondent no. 3 has also filed their reply by filing an affidavit. It is his case that as per Section 13 of the Goa State Fire Forces Act, 1986, the Government is empowered to require owners or occupants of the premises to take measures as may be required by a notification and, accordingly, the Government issued a notification under Section 13 (10) of the said Act, by which commercial/industrial units and higher rise buildings have to obtain such certificate from the Fire Services. He has further stated that the Osia Commercial Complex, where the Respondent no. 8 has constructed an auditorium was originally approved as a commercial building and No Objection Certificate was granted to the said building as per the provisions of the Fire Forces Act, 1986. He has further stated that the Osia Commercial Complex, where the Respondent no. 8 has constructed an auditorium was originally approved as a commercial building and No Objection Certificate was granted to the said building as per the provisions of the Fire Forces Act, 1986. In view of a letter issued by the District Magistrate, the said Respondents inspected the premises on 21.08.2004 and the District Magistrate was informed that the said premises cannot be recommended for auditorium. It is further his case that by letter dated 05.11.2004, Respondent no. 8 informed the said Office that all the requirements of fire safety measures as per the National Building Code as recommended by the said Office, have been complied with. It is further his contention that the inspection was thereafter again carried out on 16.11.2004, when it was found that all the requirements were not met and, accordingly, the Respondent no. 8 was asked to comply with and take interim measures of fire safety. The recommendations were also given to the said Respondent to remedy the situation. It is further his case that by letter dated 22.11.2004, the Respondent no. 8 informed that they had complied with the fire safety measures as per the National Building Code. An undertaking was also given by the said Respondent no. 8 that utmost care would be taken during the screening of the films to ensure public safety. Another inspection was carried out by the said Respondents on 23.11.2004 and being satisfied with the factual position, a provisional No Objection Certificate was issued on 23.11.2004 to the Respondent no. 8 to conduct under specific fire protection measures as specified in the affidavit. 5. An additional affidavit also came to be filed by the Addl. Collector. He has further, inter alia, stated that the Land Record Office located on third floor, has a separate staircase. The Member Secretary of Respondent no. 7 has also filed an affidavit justifying the revision of the plans by the Respondent no. 8. He has further stated that on perusal of the plan i.e. R-7/A and R-7/B, it will be seen that each Wing has two separate stair cases and one capsule lift for all the floors. He has further stated that Respondent no. 8 had applied for completion certificate of Wing A comprising of ground floor, first floor and second floor and cine-theatre of third and fourth floor. He has further stated that Respondent no. 8 had applied for completion certificate of Wing A comprising of ground floor, first floor and second floor and cine-theatre of third and fourth floor. After conducting a site inspection, the authorities had issued a completion certificate on 23.03.2004. He has further stated that the Planning and Development Authority (Development Plan) Regulation 2000, came into force on 01.01.2001 when the authority adopted the Planning and Development Authority (Development Plan) Regulation 2000, in its meeting held on 12.12.2000. He has further stated that the Regulations of 2000 were not applicable at the time when the approval was granted on 03.02.1998 and even when the renewal on 27.11.2000 was issued. He has further stated that at that time, the Planning and Development Authority (Development Plan) Regulations 1999, were in force. He has further stated that under 23 and 24 of Part III of the Regulations 1999 or the provisions under 4.14 under Part III of the Regulations 2000 do not stipulate that development approval must be granted unless No Objection Certificate is obtained from the Fire Department. He has further stated that when the completion certificate was issued, he had acted upon the completion certificate issued by the Director of Fire Services. 6. The Respondent no. 8 has also filed his affidavit and, inter alia, stated that the Director of File and Emergency Services had inspected on 13.08.2010 the theatre of the said Respondent and had certified that the fire prevention and protection measures provided for the occupants are satisfactory and, accordingly, granted No Objection Certificate dated 08.09.2010 from the fire service point of view. He has further stated that Director of Fire Services upon inspection of the theatre on 14.09.2011, certified that the fire prevention and protection measures provided for the occupants are satisfactory. He has also stated that upon inspection on 28.11.2012, the Director of Fire Emergency Services had also found that the measure as taken by the Respondent no. 8 were satisfactory. He has also stated that the Electrical Inspector had issued the certificate after inspection. He has also stated on 15.11.2010, the Additional District Magistrate, South Goa, inspected the premises and has granted a licence for Exhibition under the Goa, Daman and Diu Cinematography Rules, 1965. He has further stated that on 07.12.2011, the Addl. District Magistrate had also inspected the premises and granted the licences under the Cinematography Rules, 1965. He has also stated on 15.11.2010, the Additional District Magistrate, South Goa, inspected the premises and has granted a licence for Exhibition under the Goa, Daman and Diu Cinematography Rules, 1965. He has further stated that on 07.12.2011, the Addl. District Magistrate had also inspected the premises and granted the licences under the Cinematography Rules, 1965. Thereafter, similar licence was also granted which was valid until 27.11.2012. 7. Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has pointed out that the opening of the Multiplex is contrary to the provisions of the statute and, as such, it can result in a catastrophy in case of any fire to the said building. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the requirements of the National Building Code in respect of the width of the openings or exit points have not been satisfied by the Respondent no. 8. The learned Counsel further submits that as far as a cinema theatre is concerned, it is incumbent upon the Respondent no. 8 to comply with the norms of the National Building Code. Learned Counsel further pointed out that even with regard to the Regulations of 1999, there are deficiencies which have been pointed out in the inspection report conducted by the Inspection Authority. Learned Counsel also brought to our notice that an Order came to be passed on 05.11.2012 on the basis of the minutes of the Order to ascertain whether the Multiplex has complied with the fire safety requirements as stipulated under the Goa Daman and Diu Cinematography Rules, 1965 and the National Building Code of 1983 Part – IV, Fire Prevention as amended in 1997. The learned Counsel further points out that in the report which has been submitted, there are deficiencies which have been pointed out with regard to the premises of the Respondent no.8 by the statutory authorities. Learned Counsel as such submits that unless and until the breaches are remedied, the question of proceeding with exhibiting movies in the said theatre would not arise. 8. On the other hand, Shri Y. V. Nadkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 8, has disputed the said contention. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Regulations of 1999 have been duly complied with by the Respondent no. 8. The deficiency, if any, is two cms which is not at all material considering that Respondent no. 8. On the other hand, Shri Y. V. Nadkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 8, has disputed the said contention. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Regulations of 1999 have been duly complied with by the Respondent no. 8. The deficiency, if any, is two cms which is not at all material considering that Respondent no. 8 has provided more exit openings to the said theatre then prescribed. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Respondent no. 8 has also filed an affidavit, inter alia, disclosing that the Fire Authorities have given their No Objection with regard to the safety measures taken by Respondent no. 8. Learned Counsel further pointed out that these permissions are being renewed every one year and any measures recommended by the Respondent no. 3 are complied with by the Respondent no. 8 before obtaining such permissions. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the provisions of the National Building Code are not applicable to the theatre of the Respondent no. 8 in view of the provisions of the Regulation 1999. Learned Counsel further pointed out that in any event the Building Codes are only recommendary and not mandatory. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Petition is motivated Petition filed at the behest of the rivals M/s. Heera Films who were unsuccessful in the objections raised before the District Magistrate. 9. Shri Rodrigues, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the Respondent nos. 1 to 5, pointed out that the activities carried out by the Respondent no. 3 are in accordance with the statute. Learned Addl. Government Advocate further submits that National Building Code is not applicable to the facts of the present case as permission granted to Respondent no. 8 is in terms of the Cinematography Rules of 1965. Learned Counsel further pointed out that under the Cinematography Act, the requirements of the Rules will have to be substantially complied with. In the present case, the Respondent no. 8 has duly complied with the said provisions. 10. Shri S. D. Padiyar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 6, has pointed out that according to the Municipal Authorities, the Respondent no. 8 has duly complied with the requirements of law considering that the National Building Code is not applicable to the activities being carried out by the Respondent no. 8. 11. 10. Shri S. D. Padiyar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 6, has pointed out that according to the Municipal Authorities, the Respondent no. 8 has duly complied with the requirements of law considering that the National Building Code is not applicable to the activities being carried out by the Respondent no. 8. 11. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. We have also gone through the records. The report submitted by the Authorities pursuant to the directions issued by this Court clearly specify that as fast as the requirements of the Goa Daman and Diu Cinematography Rules of 1965 are concerned, the Respondent no. 8 has duly complied with such requirements. Though Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, tried to impress upon us that the width and the height of the exit doors are deficient to the extent of 2 cms, we find that considering that the authorities after duly sanctioning the activities carried out by the Respondent no. 8 in such premises, it would not be appropriate for this Court to give any directions with regard to such alleged deficiencies in the present Petition. Apart from that, Shri Y. V. Nadkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 8, pointed out that the exits provided by the Respondent no. 8 are more than the ones which are otherwise prescribed for such theatres. In the background of such facts, we find that the deficiencies pointed out by Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, do not require any consideration. 12. With regard to the contentions of Shri Pangam, learned Counsel, that the provisions of the National Building Code have not been complied with, we find that the provisions of the National Building Code are recommendary in nature and in any event, the authorities have categorically stated that the building put up by the Respondent no. 8 would be regulated by the Regulations of 1999. On perusal of the Cinematography Rules of 1965 applicable to the Respondent no. 8, it clearly provides that the building would be governed by the Regulations of 1999. On perusal of the provisions of the said Regulations, we find that there is substantial compliance with the requirements therein and the Petitioner was unable to point out any gross violation of any of the Regulations specified therein. 8, it clearly provides that the building would be governed by the Regulations of 1999. On perusal of the provisions of the said Regulations, we find that there is substantial compliance with the requirements therein and the Petitioner was unable to point out any gross violation of any of the Regulations specified therein. Hence, the contention of the Petitioner that there is any violation of the building norms cannot be accepted. 13. With regard to the contention of Shri Pangam, learned Counsel, to the effect that the fire safety measures have not been complied with, we find that on perusal of the affidavit of Respondent no. 8, such permission from the Fire Services Authorities has been obtained by Respondent no. 8 from time to time. In fact, the Respondent no. 8 along with his affidavit, has produced different permissions upto the year 2013. In such circumstances, we find that the contention of Shri Pangam, learned Counsel that there is any breach with regard to the fire safety measures, cannot be accepted. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner was unable to point out any breach committed by the authorities of the provisions of law whilst granting such permissions. The permissions have not been challenged in the above Writ Petition. As such, we find that the contention of the Petitioner that the measures for fire safety have not been complied with by the Respondent no. 8, cannot be accepted. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that there is no reason to interfere with the licence granted to the Respondent no. 8 with regard to the subject matter of the premises. The authorities, in their report have clearly specified that the provisions of law have been duly complied with by the Respondent no. 8. Apart from that, Section 12 of the Cinematography Act, reads thus: “12. (1) The licensing authority shall not grant a license under this Part, unless it is satisfied that - (a) the rules made under this Part have been substantially complied with, and (b) adequate precautions have been taken in the place, in respect of which the licence is to be given, to provide for the safety of persons attending exhibitions therein. (1) The licensing authority shall not grant a license under this Part, unless it is satisfied that - (a) the rules made under this Part have been substantially complied with, and (b) adequate precautions have been taken in the place, in respect of which the licence is to be given, to provide for the safety of persons attending exhibitions therein. (2) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this section and to the control of the State Government, the licensing authority may grant licences under this Part to such persons as that authority thinks fit and on such terms and conditions and subject to such restrictions as it may determine. (3) Any person aggrieved by the decision of a licensing authority refusing to grant a licence under this Part may, within such time as may be prescribed, appeal to the State Government or to such officer as the State Government may specify in this behalf and the State Government or the officer, as the case may be, may make such order in the case as it or he thinks fit. (4) The Central Government may, from time to time, issue directions to licensees generally or to any licensee in particular for the purpose of regulating the exhibition of any film or class of films, so that scientific films, films intended for educational purposes, films dealing with news and current events, documentary films or indigenous films secure an adequate opportunity of being exhibited, and where any such directions have been issued those directions shall be deemed to be additional conditions and restrictions subject to which the licence has been granted. Power of Central Government or local authority to suspend exhibition of films in certain cases.” 15. On going through the said provisions, we find that the substantial compliance of the Rules is expected of the Respondent no. 8 and taking note of the reports produced by the authorities, we find that there is substantial compliance of the Rules by the Respondent no. 8. In such circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the disputed licences granted to the Respondent no. 8. 16. Hence, the Petition stands rejected. Rule stands discharged.