1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9715 OF 2007 M/s.Golden Bin (Restaurant and Bar) through its Manager .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Ms.Bobby Malhotra for petitioner Mr.Nitin Deshpande for respondents CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 8th January 2008 P.C. . This petition impugns an action of the respondents suspending the licence which was issued in favour of the petitioner - 2 establishment. 2. My attention is invited by Mr.Deshpande, learned A.G.P. to the rules which have been framed by the State Government under section 33(w) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The rules are entitled thus:- "Rules for keeping places of public entertainment in Greater Bombay 1953" 3. My attention is invited to Rule 28 and proviso thereto so also Rule 28-A. The same read thus:- "28. No licence granted under these Rules shall be cancelled or suspended until the holder of a licence has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why his licence should not be cancelled or suspended as the case may 3 be." "Provided that no such opportunity for showing causes shall be necessary when the licence is suspended for a temporary period pending an enquiry against the holder of the licence for contravention of any of these rules or any order made thereunder or of any of the conditions of the licence granted to him." "28-A: Any person aggrieved by an order of the Commissioner of Police refusing to grant or renew a licence or cancelling or suspending a licence under the provisions of these rules may within thirty days from the date or receipts by him of such order, appeal to the State Government." 4. In all fairness Ms.Malhotra states that the petitioner has not challenged the legality 4 and validity of the rules nor does the petitioner question the power of the Authority to suspend the licence. However, the action is taken without issuing any show cause notice or hearing the petitioner and, therefore, the suspension is per se bad in law. 5. Rule 28-A provides for an appeal to the State Government. Mr.Deshpande, learned A.G.P. states that since the remedy is that of an appeal, the petitioner also can apply for stay of the impugned action. 6. Having perused the subject provisions and the rules, in my view, there is an alternate and equally efficacious remedy available to the petitioner which is in the form of an appeal to the State Government. In such circumstances and when there is also liberty to apply for stay in the appeal, then, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 and 227 of the 5 Constitution of India. Petition dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy being available. However, to enable the petitioner to file an appeal and apply for stay therein, ad-interim order granted by this Court on 31st December 2007 shall continue for a period of one week from today. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)