ORDER
P.S. Kailasam, J.
1. This petition is filed by the Proprietor of Rohini Touring Talkies, for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the Board of Revenue in B. P. Rt. No. 6149/L, dated 23rd November, 1967, confirming the orders of the Collector of Dharmapuri in K. Dis. No. 4640/67 G.B. dated 1st August, 1967, issuing a no objection certificate to the first respondent to locate the touring cinema.
2. The petitioner is running a touring cinema and he objects to the grant of the no objection certificate to the first respondent on the ground that it is situated within the prohibited distance. The petitioner’s cinema is located in S. No. 19 and the first respondent’s in S. No. 3. The route for reaching the site of the first respondent from the petitioner’s cinema is to proceed north from the petitioner’s site, S. No. 17, and at the western extremity of S. No. 17 to cut into S. Nos. 8, 7 and 6 to reach the eastern end of S. Nor 5 and to proceed west along the southern extremity of S. Nos. 5 and 4, to reach the site in S.No. 3; in which the first respondent’s cinema is sought to be located. It is common ground that the distance upto the entrance to the site of the petitioner is within the prohibited distance. But according to the respondents, the distance from the entrance to the site in S. No. 4 to the actual main entrance of the cinema, which is located Very much in the inside of the site, should be taken into account. If the distance covered within S. No. 3 is taken into account, the site for cinema is not within the prohibited distance.
3. The decision on this point would depend upon the construction of Rules 14 and 101 of the Madras Cinematograph Rules. Rule 14 provides that the distance between the touring cinema in anyplace of in adjacent places shall be reckoned along the shortest pathway, lane, street, road, or any other route connecting the cinemas which is generally-used by the members of the public and rule (4) provides that the distance between any two cinemas shall be reckoned from the main entrance of one cinema to the main entrance of another. It is the common case that the shortest route between the two cinemas is the one specified earlier. The only question is what is the main entrance to the first respondent’s cinema. Rule 101 (1) provides:
The building shall have a road frontage on the public throughfare upon which the site of such building abuts ;
and Rule 101 (3) provides:
There shall be suitable means of entrance and exit for the public in such frontage.
The site on which the building is situated has a road forntage on the public through-fare. It is also admitted that there is suitable means of entrance and exit for the public in such frontage. The road frontage on the public throughfare in the site on which the building abuts will be at the junction in S. No. 4 where the private road takes off from S. No. 4. It was contended by Mr. V P. Raman, the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the main entrance of the cinema should be construed as the road frontage on the public thoroughfare. I am unable to accept this contention, for the main entrance of the cinema may be Very near the building and far removed from the road frontage on the public thoroughfare. In cases where the cinema house is located inside a big site, the road frontage on the public thoroughfare will be the place where the site opens into the road. The main entrance of the cinema will be the actual entrance to the cinema house well inside the site. This view was taken by the Bench of this Court in T. M. Chandrasekharan and Anr. v. Mahalakshmi Theatre W.A. No. 153 of 1962, where it was held that the expression ‘ main entrance ‘ in Rule 14(4) has no technical meaning and that as the rule itself shows, ‘main entrance ‘ is the entrance of the actual building in which cinema shows are to be given and for the purpose of ascertaining the distance between the permanent cinema and the touring cinema, it would be the measurement has to be made from the permanent cinema to the main entrance of the theatre of the touring; cinema. Following the decision in T.M. Chandrasekharan and Anr. v. Mahalakshmi Theatre W.A. No. 153 of 1962, I accept the View taken by the Board of Revenue and dismiss this petition. There will be no order as to costs.