*1* wp.624.11.935.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.624 OF 2011 Gulabi Mohan Shetty. ..Petitioner -Versus- The Commissioner of Police and another. ..Respondents .......... Mrs.Veena Thadhani, for the Petitioner. Mr.Nitin P. Deshpande, AGP, for the Respondents. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 16th June, 2011. P.C.: 1 Heard Mrs.Thadhani, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr.Deshpande, learned AGP for the Respondents. 2 The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.07.2010 passed by the Respondent No.1 suspending the Public Entertainment Licence of the Petitioner’s Bar & Restaurant for seven consecutive days. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Authority, namely, the State Government which also came to be dismissed by the order dated 27.12.2010. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 3 The show-cause notice was issued to the Petitioner alleging therein the violation of of Rules 6, 21-A and 24 of the Public Entertainment Rules and the terms and conditions of the licence. Further, the terms and conditions mandate that the licence holder is bound to follow the Bombay Shop and Establishment Act, 1948 and particularly, the stipulations therein, wherein, as per Section 33 the women workers are not allowed to remain present at the place of work/establishment after *2* wp.624.11.935.sxw 09:30 p.m.. In the show-cause notice, particular instances have been pointed out, namely, on 16.02.2010 at about 09:45 p.m., Agripada Police Station took action under Section 110 of the Bombay Police Act against six women waitresses and six customers. In the said offence, the accused pleaded guilty and the fine was imposed. 4 That the women waitresses were found beyond the working hours and that the instances appear to be more or less admitted is clear because in the reply to the show-cause notice, what the Petitioner has stated is that the raid was carried out by Agripada Police Station on 16.02.2010 in the night at 09:45 p.m. and apart from that, there is no other incident. In the latter part of the reply, it is stated that the raid was carried out much prior to 09:45 p.m. and the relevant licences were asked by the raiding party and the same were produced before them. The girls were picked up at 09:20 pm. and brought at Agripada Police Station, therefore, the station diary entry must be of 09:45 p.m. as there is a distance of about more than 15 minutes from the restaurant to the Police Station. Further, it is stated that the lady waitresses may have pleaded guilty to the charges, but that is because of the incitement by the Police to get rid of the said case and also that they would get refund of the fine amount deposited by them. 5 This reply itself is enough to indicate that the incident did take place and the finding of fact recorded, cannot be said to be perverse and based on no material. It is not for this Court to decide as to whether, the incident took place in working hours or beyond the same. Further, the activities were indecent or vulgar or not, is also not the matter for this Court to go into, once the waitresses pleaded guilty and paid the fine. The Petitioner was obliged to act in terms of the conditions imposed in the licence. The Petitioner is not supposed to allow any activity of the nature *3* wp.624.11.935.sxw complained to be carried out. 6 Today, the argument is that Rule 21-A has no application because the Petitioner is not keeping the place for public entertainment and only running the restaurant where food and liquor is served. Then, all the more the Petitioner is not permitted to carry out the activities alleged in the show-cause notice and they having been proved, it is clear that the terms and conditions of the licence have been violated. The authorities have taken due note of the plea raised that this is the first violation in 21 years of the business, therefore, they have suspended the licence for seven days only. 7 Having perused the material that is produced before me, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case for interference in writ jurisdiction. Reliance placed on the judgment in the case of Padma N. Kokarne (M/s Pooja Bar & Restaurant) v/s The Commissioner of Police, Mumbai and another, in Writ Petition No.1181/2004, decided on 17.06.2004, is misplaced because in that case the learned Single Judge has found as a matter of fact that the order of suspension was based on mere allegation in the show-cause notice and there was no supporting material. In the instant case, the allegation is supported by cogent material including the admission of the Petitioner as pointed out above. Therefore, this decision is clearly distinguishable. 8 For the reasons afore stated, I find no reason to interfere. Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)