Dr. R.R. Misra, J. - (1.) THE petitioners were granted a temporary licence for travelling cinema on 4 -7 -1990 for a period of six months. In the request of the petitioners the same was extended further for another period of six months. The said term has already expired on 3 -7 -1991. By means of the present writ petition the petitioners have claimed that they are entitled for the renewal of the said licence for a further period of another six months under the provisions of Rule 21 of the U.P. Cinematograph Rules 1951. The relevant Rule 27 of the said Rules reads as under: 27. Period and extent of Licences to travelling cinemas. - -(1) The Licensing Authority may grant a licence to a travelling cinema initially for a period not exceeding six months. (emphasis supplied). (2) The licence granted under sub -section (1) may be extended for a further period not exceeding six months provided the following conditions are fulfilled,.... In support of the said claim, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon G.O., dated 4 -7 -1985, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. His contention is that in view of the said G.O., the petitioner is entitled for the grant of renewal of the licence for a further period of six months effective from 4 -7 -1991. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the contents of the said G.O. On a close reading of the said G.O. it is clear to us that the G.O. contemplates for grant of a temporary licence for a period of six months initially and thereafter for extension of the same for a further period of six months as contemplated under Rule 27(2) of the aforesaid Rules. The said G.O. further states that further temporary licence may be granted to an applicant, who has already availed of the grant of temporary licence of one year as stated above, for a further period of six months only after a gap of six months. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said G.O. also state that extension of a temporary licence beyond a period of one year cannot be proper and in the public interest. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the gap of said six months as contemplated under the said G.O. is arbitrary. Having regard to the provisions as contemplated under Rule 27 of the aforesaid Rules and the provisions of the G.O. referred to above, we do not find that the said provision is arbitrary. On the other hand it is in accordance with the scheme of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. We, therefore, repeal the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) NO other point was pressed before us. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed summarily. Let a certified copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within a week.;