vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6432 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6432 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6432 OF 2008 Ujwala Ramesh Suryawanshi & anr. ... Petitioners V/s. The Dist. Magistrate & Collector, Nashik & Anr. ... Respondents Mr.M.S. Karnik for Petitioners Mr.P.P. Kakade, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: APRIL 8, 2009 APRIL 8, 2009 APRIL 8, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petition arises from the action taken against the petitioners by the respondents by an order dated 7.8.2008 cancelling the licence issued for eating house run by the petitioners, on the ground that the Investigating Officer had reported that criminal cases had been filed against the petitioners and they had been fined. 2. The petitioners are conducting the business of a lodging and boarding house under the name of Pranam Resorts for the last 10 years. They applied for renewal of their eating house licence on 19.12.2007 for the year 2008. They were informed that the licence could not be renewed as the Investigating Officer had submitted an adverse report indicating that certain activities had : 2 : been noticed in the hotel for which the licences should not be renewed. It appears that couples were found in the lodging house indulging in obscene and vulgar behaviour and therefore the complaints were lodged and cases were registered before the JMFC, Igatpuri. The couples pleaded guilty and a fine was imposed on them. Significantly, there was no prosecution against the petitioners. On 28.1.2008, Petitioners expressed their regret for the happenings in their resort and assured the authorities that they would monitor the behaviour of their guests in the lodge closely. 3. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners which was replied by them. On 23.4.2008, the Respondent No.1 cancelled the eating house licence on the ground that the Investigating Officer had reported that criminal cases had been filed against the petitioners and fines have been imposed on them. 4. An affidavit has been filed by the Executive Magistrate, Igatpuri wherein he has stated that the couples who were found indulging in obscene behaviour in the lodging house have been convicted and fined. However, there is nothing in the affidavit to indicate that the petitioners had been found guilty of any criminal act. : 3 : 5. The learned AGP admits candidly that no prosecutions were lodged against the petitioners for the acts committed by the couples who were found in their lodging house. No action at all had been taken against the petitioners. 6. In my view, therefore, since the petitioners were not prosecuted nor was there any case pending against the petitioners, the respondents ought not to have cancelled the eating house licence. The conditions on which such a licence can be cancelled are contained in the Bombay Police Act. None of these conditions are attracted to the present case and therefore in my view, the action of the respondents in cancelling the petitioner’s licence for running the eating house is illegal. 7. The petition is therefore allowed. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b).