IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 236 OF 2008 APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 236 OF 2008 APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 236 OF 2008 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO. 69 OF WRIT PETITION NO. 69 OF WRIT PETITION NO. 69 OF 2008 2008 2008 Anitha A. Shetty [M/s.Hotel Aabhar (Bay Watch)] ...Appellant (Orig.Appellant) V/s. The Commissioner of Police & Anr. ...Respondents (Orig.Respondents) Mrs.Veena Thadani for the Appellant. Mr.J.S. Saluja, AGP for the State. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JUNE 3, 2008 DATED : JUNE 3, 2008 DATED : JUNE 3, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. The present appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 69 of 2008 dated 22nd April, 2008. Suffice it to note that the petitioner is carrying on the business of running a hotel located at Mumbai. She was granted permit for running a restaurant and Public Entertainment License under the provisions of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The respondents in the present appeal issued a - 2 - Show Cause Notice to the appellant on 4th August, 2007 exercising their powers under the provisions of the Act and for cancellation of the permit. The reply to the Show Cause Notice was filed on 27th August, 2007. Allegations were denied but finally, after hearing the appellant the order dated 16th September, 2007 was passed. As the Licensing Authority was not satisfied with the explanation rendered, the order dated 19th September, 2007 was passed suspending the license of the petitioner for a period of 90 days. This appeal against this order preferred by the appellant under Section 33 of the Act meeting the same facts. These orders of the Competent Authority have been challenged by the petitioner before this Court in the above noted writ petition which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide the order impugned in the present appeal. The learned Single Judge observed as under :- "....... This is a case where violation has been referred to and apart from serious cases being registered, it has been found that no Authorised person has been taking responsibility of managing the establishment. The petitioner has not pursued her application and applied for prior permission while changing or substituting - 3 - the managers. In such circumstances and when serious breaches are alleged in the past as well, it is not possible to accept the contention of Mrs.Thadani that the impugned orders are vitiated by serious errors apparent on the face of the record or non application of mind. 13. In the result, there is no substance in the petition and it is dismissed. In the view that I have taken, it is not necessary to make detailed reference to the decisions brought to my notice. It is not the case of Mrs.Thadani that the power to suspend was not available at all or that it could not be exercised merely because some criminal cases are registered and they are pending. Her argument proceeds on the basis that such power is available but its exercise is vitiated in this case, which submission on facts is not found to be tenable." 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has challenged the correctness of the order by relying upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court. 3. However, during the course of hearing and while meeting the various contentions raised on behalf of the appellant, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents fairly stated that without prejudice to his rights and contentions and after seeking instructions from the client concerned that without giving effect to the order dated 19th September, 2007 any further, they - 4 - shall hear the petitioner and the grounds indicated in the counter-affidavit which includes prosecution of the petitioner in different cases, the panchnama and the FIR and including the reports furnished to the department by its officer stating that the restaurant is running by the petitioner contrary to the terms of the license and beyond the prescribed hour, they would hear the petitioner and pass an order afresh, in accordance with law. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant states that they would take no action in regard to the order dated 19th September, 2007 being effected for the period which has already expired and he would appear before the respondents on 12th June, 2008 at 11 a.m. in the office of the Licensing Authority. 5. The said Authority would hear the appellant and pass order, in accordance with Rules and principles of natural justice. It will be open to the parties to take any proceedings against the order so passed by the Licensing Authority. - 5 - 6. Obviously, the order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either side. 7. Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J.