-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6802 OF 2011 Vandar Pundalik Patil. ..Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Pankaj Kansara for the petitioner. Ms. P. S. Cardozo, AGP. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : September 15, 2011. P. C. : 1. The petitioner by filing present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order passed by respondent no.2, as confirmed by respondent no.3 whereunder the Entertainment Licence in respect of the petitioner's establishment, namely, Vijay (Samudra) Bar & Restaurant is suspended for the period of 90 days. 2. The suspension order was passed by respondent no.2 after issuing notice to the petitioner and granting him an opportunity of hearing. The ground for suspension is that when the petitioner’s establishment was raided on 29/9/2010 at 10.05 p.m., 5 women singers were found engaged in indecent behavior with 12 customers who were present in the srp -: 2 :- premises. 5 singers as well as 12 customers and petitioner's manager were charge-sheeted by the police. Singers as well as customers have pleaded guilty and they have been convicted. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Entertainment Licence in respect of the petitioner’s establishment is rightly suspended. 3. The order suspending Entertainment Licence in respect of the Petitioner’s establishment was implemented w.e.f. 17/1/2011 and petitioner could not serve liquor till 2/2/2011, i.e., for nearly 15 days. On 1/2/2011, this Court granted stay to the suspension order during the pendency and till the final disposal of appeal filed by the petitioner before respondent no. 3. Taking into consideration the gravity of incident dated 29/9/2010 and the fact that the petitioner was found involved in criminal activity for the first time, in my opinion, the punishment of suspending petitioner’s licence for the period of 90 days, would be excessive. In my opinion, the punishment of suspension of Entertainment Licence for the period of 45 days would be appropriate. I accordingly directed the petitioner to file an Affidavit not to serve liquor for the period of 30 days from 9/9/2011 till 8/10/2011. The petitioner has accordingly filed affidavit dated 12/9/2011. In paragraph no. 6 -: 3 :- thereof, the petitioner, as mentioned above, has given undertaking that he will not serve liquor in his establishment from 9/9/2011 till 8/10/2011. Undertaking is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. The undertaking is accepted. In the circumstances, subject to above the petition is disposed of. (RANJIT MORE, J.)