Alladi Kuppuswami, C.J.
1. The appellant filed writ petition No. 7717 of 1979 questioning the grant of a licence for the construction of a temporary cinema to the third respondent. The first contention that was raised was that there are six permanent and six temporary theatres within a radius of 8 kilometres from Machavaram village of which Ambajipeta in which the cinema is to be located is a hamlet, and therefore, the grant of licence to the third respondent for a temporary theatre is contrary of the rules.
2. Under Rule 7 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Cinema (Resulation) Rules, 1970. 'subject to Sub-rule (5) of this rule, the number of cinema buildings allowed to function in any place on the basis of the population of such place shall be as specified below :
(a) There shall be no restriction on the basis of pupulation to the grant of licences (i) to permanent cinemas; and (ii) to temporary cinemas if there is no permanent cinema;
(c) Where the population is 20,000 and less, only one temporary cienma shall be allowed if there is one permanent cinema and no temporary cinema shall be allowed if there are more than one permanent cinemas:
(d) & (e) .....
Rule 7 (4) provides that in calculating the population of a place for the purpose of Sub-rule (1) account shall be taken not only of the permanent and floating population of the place but alsoof its environs within a radius of eight kilometres being calculated from the Municipal, Gram Panchayat or Revenue Village limits. It was pointed out that there are permament theatres in Amala-puram which is within eight kilometresfrom Ambajipeta. The learned Judge considered the scope of Rule 7 (4) and held that Amalapuram which is situated within eight kilometres of Machavaram village cannot be taken into account. He observed that once there is no permanent theatre in Machavaram village, there is no prohibition in the matter of grant of licence to anothertemporary theatre. We are inclined to agree with the reasoning of the learned Judge. Under Rule 7 (1) (a), there is no restriction on the basis of population to grant licences to temporary cinemas, if there is no permanent cinema. In this case, it is admitted that there is no permanent cinema either in Ambajipeta or at Machavaram of which Ambajipeta is a hamlet. Therefore, the question of population is irrelevant. Rule 7 (4) comes in only with reference to the calculation of the population for the purposes of Sub-rule (1). As the calculation of population with reference to Rule 7 (1)(a) is irrelevant Rule 7 (4) has no application. In other words, Rule 7 (4) applies only to cases where the calculation of population becomes relevant, namely, cases covered by Rule 7 (1) (b) to (r). The grant of temporary licence to the third respondent is therefore in order and in accordance with Rule 7 (1) (a). Rule 7 (1)(c) on which the appellant relies has no application as it applies only to a case where there are one or more permanent cinemas. Similarly. Rules 7 (1)(d) and 7(1)(e) apply to cases where there are one or more permanent cinemas.
3. The second objection is that the distance between the appellant's theatre and the third respondent's theatre is less than 800 metres. The learned Judge rightly did not entertain, this objection as it was not raised before the Licensing Authority or before the Government and it involves a question of fact,
4. The third objection is that there is a Nursing Home and the grant of licence is contrary to Rule 8. It is, however, pointed out by the learned Judge that the owner of the Nursing Home had no objection and the only condition he stipulated was that the use of loud-speakers and amplifiers should be regulated and this safeguard has been provided by the Government while granting the licence. We cannot understand how, in the circumstances, the appellant can make a grievance based on the circumstance that there is a Nursing Home nearby.
5. The Writ Appeal is dismissed.