IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.182 OF 2008 Kucchuputen Parampil Skarya James ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Pankaj Kansara i/b Kansara & Thanekar for Petitioner. Mr.R.R.Bhosale, A.G.P. for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. FEBRUARY 1, 2008. FEBRUARY 1, 2008. FEBRUARY 1, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties on admission of the Petition. 2. The first contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner is that the proposed action against the Petitioner is not in accordance with the provisions of law. Counsel for the Petitioner relying on Rule 27 of Rules for Keeping Places of Public Entertainment In Greater Bombay, 1953 : 2 : submits that the show-cause notice makes no reference to any offending action so as to prevent any obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger or damage to the residents or passengers in the vicinity or to prevent disturbance in such place and every person keeping a place of public entertainment to comply with such direction. To buttress this argument, Counsel placed reliance on the decision of our High Court reported in 2004 (1) 2004 (1) 2004 (1) All.MR 677 in the case of Allahbaksh Ismail Ebrahim All.MR 677 in the case of Allahbaksh Ismail Ebrahim All.MR 677 in the case of Allahbaksh Ismail Ebrahim vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors. vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors. vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors. In my opinion, this argument is devoid of merits. The argument clearly overlooks that the show-cause notice invokes at least two tangible grounds as can be discerned from the show-cause notice. The first ground is that the Petitioner has breached the conditions of license on five different counts referred to at pages 53 and 54. The additional ground stated in the show-cause notice is that although action of suspension has been resorted to against the Petitioner on three occasions in the past, the Petitioner has indulged in the breach of license condition unabatedly. On this allegation, the Authority proceeded to consider action of : 3 : cancellation of license as is noted in the show-cause notice. Those grounds are indisputably ascribable to ground provided in Rule 27 when the Commissioner of Police is competent to cancel or suspend the license, if the licensee is not a suitable person for continuing to hold the license. The Petitioner has placed reliance only on the latter part of Rule 27. Rule 27 will have to be read as a whole and if so read, I have no difficulty in taking the view that the proposed action of the Respondents against the Petitioner was clearly covered by the provisions of Rule 27. Thus understood, the decision pressed into service by the Petitioner is of no avail. 3. The next argument canvassed on behalf of the Petitioner is that the show-cause notice was not accompanied by relevant materials on which the Authority proceeded to issue show-cause notice against the Petitioner. This argument merely deserves to be stated to be rejected. No such grievance was made by the Petitioner before the First Authority on receipt of the show-cause notice. It would have been a different matter if : 4 : the Petitioner, in response to the show-cause notice, was to immediately write to the competent Authority to furnish all the relevant material, in absence of which, the Petitioner was to be deprived of making effective representation. That has not happened in the present case. Instead, the Petitioner proceeded to file elaborate reply to the show-cause notice and participated in the enquiry before the First Authority as well as the Appellate Authority without any demur. The argument of breach of natural justice on account of non-supply of documents is only an afterthought which cannot be entertained at this belated stage. 4. The next argument of the Petitioner is that the punishment imposed by the Authority is disproportionate and excessive. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner was at best found responsible in respect of eight items referred to in the show-cause notice (see pages 52 and 53). Out of the eight items, one matter was subjudice before the Court which cannot be reckoned to proceed against the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, out of the remaining seven cases, in : 5 : one case, there is serious dispute about the fact that the restaurant was kept open beyond the specified time. It is the argument of the Petitioner that going by the complaint, it is obvious that only six customers were found in the restaurant at around 2.45 a.m. and it was not as if regular business activities were going on in the restaurant. This argument clearly overlooks that the fact that six customers were found enjoying the hospitality in the restaurant at 2.45 a.m. is not disputed. That justifies the case already registered against the Petitioner. Insofar as that case is concerned, the deposit amount has been forfeited as is noted in the show cause notice. Besides, I find substance in the argument of the Counsel for the Respondents that during the enquiry before the First Authority the Petitioner plainly conceded the cases referred to at item Nos.2 and 3 at page 53 regarding breach of Rule 8(1) and 8(2) as is noted at page 54 clause (2) in the order passed by the First Authority. Suffice it to observe that it is a case of persistent breach of license condition committed by the Petitioner, deserving no leniency. : 6 : 5. The Counsel for the Petitioner would then contend, relying on the decisions of our High Court in the case of Hotel Haveli vs. The State of Hotel Haveli vs. The State of Hotel Haveli vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. in Writ Petition No.7106 of Maharashtra & Ors. in Writ Petition No.7106 of Maharashtra & Ors. in Writ Petition No.7106 of 1998 decided on 23rd February 1999 and case of 1998 decided on 23rd February 1999 and case of 1998 decided on 23rd February 1999 and case of M/s.Hotel Krishna vs. Dy.Commissioner of Police & M/s.Hotel Krishna vs. Dy.Commissioner of Police & M/s.Hotel Krishna vs. Dy.Commissioner of Police & Ors. in Writ Petition No.655 of 1999 decided on Ors. in Writ Petition No.655 of 1999 decided on Ors. in Writ Petition No.655 of 1999 decided on 15th February 1999. 15th February 1999. 15th February 1999. In both these cases, contends learned Counsel for the Petitioner, there were large number of cases registered against the license holders. Inspite of that, the Court proceeded to reduce the suspension period only for seven days and fifteen days respectively. Suffice it to observe that the reduction of suspension of license period in those cases was on the basis of concession made by the concerned Government Pleader as recorded in the order itself. Moreover, there is nothing in the said decisions in both the cases to show that the license was suspended on earlier three occasions, as is the case on hand. In the show-cause notice, it is stated that the license of the Petitioner was firstly suspended for seven days in the year 2002, for ten days in the year 2003 and : 7 : for fifteen days in the year 2004. That fact is not in dispute. If it is so, the punishment now imposed by the First Authority against the Petitioner to the extent of suspension of license for a period of 35 days, is, in my opinion, quite a considerate view taken by the Authority. In fact, the initial proposal of the Authority was to cancel the license of the Petitioner. Instead of ordering cancellation of license, the Authority has imposed much lesser punishment - only of suspension of license for a period of 35 days. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not possible to take the view that the suspension for a period of 35 days is excessive. 6. The Counsel for the Petitioner would then contend that the Appellate Authority in Paragraph 5 of the impugned order has noted facts which are incorrect. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner had not argued the said grounds recorded in Paragraph 5 of the impugned order. Whereas, the Petitioner had argued different grounds which have not been adverted to by the Appellate Authority at all. In this backdrop, it is contended that the : 8 : decision of the Appellate Authority suffers from non-application of mind. The Petitioner has raised this ground specifically in ground 7.1 at Page 23. Ordinarily, I would have been inclined to relegate the Petitioner before the Appellate Authority, but having regard to the finding recorded by me on merits, no fruitful purpose would be served by remitting the matter to the Appellate Authority. No other argument is canvassed before this Court on behalf of the Petitioner which would require consideration by the Appellate Authority in the first instance. 7. The only other grievance made by the Petitioner is that the Appellate Authority has reiterated the opinion recorded by the First Authority as it is. That shows that the Appellate Authority has not applied its mind. In my opinion, even this submission cannot be countenanced. Indisputably, the Appeal provided by the provisions of Bombay Police Act is to be considered by the State Government which Appeals are decided by the Minister (Home). The Appeal in the present case is a reasoned decision. The fact that the Appellate : 9 : Authority has affirmed the view of the lower Authority in all respects does not necessarily result in a case of non-application of mind. Significantly, the Appellate Authority in the present case is not a Court manned by trained Judges. Suffice it to observe that the opinion recorded by the Appellate Authority in the impugned Judgment, in my opinion, is unexceptionable. 8. In any case, for the reasons already recorded earlier, I have no difficulty in taking the view that this Petition is devoid of merits. Hence, dismissed. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.