[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL W.P.NO.2602 OF 2008 Mohan Gangaram Gehi & Anr. ..Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents ... Mr.A.P.Mundargi counsel with Mr.Prakash Naik Adv. i/b Kiran Jain & Co. for Petitioners Ms.A.A.Mane APP for State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : DECEMBER 12, 2008 DATE : DECEMBER 12, 2008 DATE : DECEMBER 12, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The petitioner no.1 is the owner of M/s. Hotel Windsor (Minchin Hotel and Restaurant). The said premises are situated at Mahatma Building, 183, Waterfield Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400050. Entertainment licence i.e. Police Licence No.227 of 2000 came to be issued in favour of the Establishment. By order dated 26.6.2008, Respondent no.2 suspended the said licence for 30 days. The petitioner challenged the said order by preferring appeal before Home Department. In the [-2-] said matter, ad-interim stay of the suspension order came to be granted. Thereafter, the appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 21.10.2008. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that neither the petitioners were present nor their advocate was present when the appeal was heard and the appeal came to be dismissed. 4. The learned APP stated that the matter was kept for hearing on 15.9.2008 and the order was passed on 21.10.2008. She has stated that when the appeal was heard on 15.9.2008, the petitioner was present. Hence, on 21.10.2008 if none appeared for the petitioners on that day, it would not make any difference. In support of her contention, she has placed reliance on the record of the case in which it is shown that the appellant was present. She has also pointed out signature wherein it was shown that the appellant was present. 5. Mr.Mundargi stated that on 13.9.2008, petitioners received notice stating that the appeal is kept for hearing on 15.9.2008 at 10-30 a.m. The said notice was received on 13.9.2008 at 11.15 p.m. [-3-] Mr.Mundargi submitted that the petitioner was unwell since a week prior to 13.9.2008, hence, on 15.9.2008 he sent a letter through his Clerk Mr.Dinesh Hode stating that as he was unwell, he could not appear in the matter and one date be granted in the said matter. The Clerk of the petitioner went with the said letter to the Home Department, his signature was obtained on the document on which the learned APP has placed reliance to show that the petitioner was present at the time of hearing of appeal. From the signature it is seen that name reflected from the signature is D.Hode. This clearly bears out the case of the petitioner that he sent his clerk to get an adjournment. However, instead of granting adjournment, signature of the clerk was obtained on the record. Thus, from the record, it is seen that the petitioner was not present nor his advocate was present on the date of hearing and it is clear that on 15.9.2008 the matter was not argued on behalf of petitioner. 6. In this view of the matter, the order dated 21.10.2008 is set aside. Appeal is restored to file. Appeal shall be re-heard and disposed of in [-4-] accordance with law. Out of the period of 30 days, the establishment of the petitioner has already been closed for 12 days. Hence, the order dated 26.6.2008 passed by the Respondent no.2 is stayed till the disposal of the appeal and for a further period of two days after disposal of the appeal if the order is adverse. 7. Petition is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]