IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 5846 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 5846 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 5846 OF 2008 Shri Voatlal Purshottam Singh. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents. P.C.Kansara for the petitioner. A.I.Patel, AGP for the respondents. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 15th September 2008. DATED: 15th September 2008. DATED: 15th September 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Rule, returnable forthwith. . Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 17th July, 2008 passed by the respondent No.4 rejecting the appeal against the order of respondent No.3- Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mumbai dated 6th September, 2007 whereby the police licence granted for the purpose of entertainment programme in the public place i.e. the restaurant run by the petitioner came to be suspended for a period of 90 consecutive days for the alleged breaches alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. 3. One of the challenges set up by the petitioner is that the orders are in breach of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, on 30th June, 2008, petitioner’s advocate had prayed for adjournment. The application was allowed. In spite of that, order dated 17th July, 2008 came to be passed. 5. The petitioner further alleges that the document sought to be relied upon in the show-cause-notice were never supplied. He also pointed out number of illegalities in the impugned order relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Allahbaksh Ismail Ebrahim v. Commissioner of Allahbaksh Ismail Ebrahim v. Commissioner of Allahbaksh Ismail Ebrahim v. Commissioner of Police Police Police, 2004 (1) All MR 677 and order dated 23rd February, 1999 passed in Writ Petition No.7106/1998 (Hotel Haveli v. The State of Maharashtra & ors. Hotel Haveli v. The State of Maharashtra & ors. Hotel Haveli v. The State of Maharashtra & ors.). 6. The learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondents tried to support the impugned order but found it difficult to take his submission to the logical end. He, however, submits that the order has already operated and the substantial part of the suspension period has expired. He, therefore, submits - 3 - that the clock cannot be put back. So far as balance period is concerned, he has left it to the discretion of this Court. 7. In the above view of the matter, considering the consensus between the parties, the period of suspension stands reduced from 90 days to 60 days which the petitioner has already undergone. With this modification to the impugned order, petition stands disposed of. Rule is partly made absolute in terms of this order with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)