*1* wp.3499.11.23.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3499 OF 2011 M/s Sunil Hotel Pvt.Ltd.. ..Petitioners -Versus- The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.Pankaj C. Kansara i/b Kansara & Thanekar, for the Petitioners. Mr.A.B.Vagyani, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 13th June, 2011. P.C.: 1 The Petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the authorities have rejected the application made under the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The Petitioner had sought a licence which is titled as “Public Entertainment Licence”. It is the case of the Petitioner that it is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The Petitioner is running hotel under the name and style “Sun-N-Sheel” where lodging and boarding activities are conducted. The hotel is certified as Three Star hotel by the Indian Tourism Department. The hotel building consists of ground plus three upper stories and there are two restaurants, namely, “Night Lovers Restaurant & Bar” and “Apna Dhabha” where the Petitioner is serving food and liquor. There are more than 40 rooms in the hotel. The Petitioner has obtained the licence from the Police authorities for lodging and boarding activities. The Petitioner has also obtained two separate liquor licences for the above two restaurants. The Petitioner has annexed to the petition a copy of FL-III licence issued by the State Excise Department. It is stated *2* wp.3499.11.23.sxw that this licence is valid and all compliance has been made. The Petitioner has made an application for licence to the Respondent No.3. The Respondent No.3 was informed about the licence under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, however, the authorities insisted for a separate licence under the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and that is how the application was made. Apna Dhaba is restaurant where the Petitioner will be serving food and liquor, therefore, the Petitioner sought licence for keeping the place for public entertainment, which application was made under the Rules for Keeping Place of Public Entertainment Rules, 1953 which are framed under Section 33 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The Petitioner has set out the distinct nature of the provisions of two enactments and has stated that the application, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-F to the petition, was placed before the Licensing Authority. The Licensing Authority, firstly, insisted that the licence for serving liquor in the restaurant should be obtained in respect of “Apna Dhaba”. Certain orders of this Court were relied upon by the Petitioner. The Petitioner pointed out the nature of the application that was made and he also attended the office of the authorities to satisfy them that the licence deserves to be granted. However, the order dated 14.10.2010 came to be passed whereby the applications dated 02.01.2009 and 03.02.2010 were rejected on the ground that one of the Director of the Petitioner is shown as wanted in C.R. No.353/2005 registered under Sections 294, 34 of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 33(A)(2) of the Bombay Police Act and C.R. No. 98/2006 alleging identical offences. Further, there are two criminal complaints bearing C.R. No.11/1999 and C.R. No.35/2008 which have been registered under the different provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The Petitioner also allegedly violated the terms and conditions of the Coffee Shop Licence. It is on these observations, that application came to *3* wp.3499.11.23.sxw be rejected. It is this order which is impugned in the present Writ Petition. 2 Mr.Kansara pointed out to me that the authorities were obliged to consider the application in terms of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The licences under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 have not been relied upon to seek the licence as the Petitioner is aware of the distinct nature of the provisions and the compliances that are to be made. Being aware of the same, the application was made which was seeking specific licence for Apna Dhaba restaurant. Therefore, any violation by the Director or others under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 or terms and conditions of the licence issued thereunder, cannot be made subject matter for rejection. The application must be scrutinized in terms of the applicable laws and so scrutinized application deserves to be granted. 3 On notice, the learned AGP has appeared. Mr.Vagyani, learned AGP, invited my attention to both orders and the affidavit which has been filed on Respondents’ behalf. He submitted that as far as Night Lovers and Apna Dhaba Restaurants are concerned, all these establishments are in one building and one premises. The licence holder is one and same. One of them is Mr.Sunil Lalji Singh, against whom serious offences have been alleged and he is absconding. Similarly, other partner Mr.Lalji Thakur Singh also faces some criminal charges. It is also pointed out that for coffee shop and Apna Dhaba there are no separate licences issued by the Municipal Corporation. Further, as far as the licence of the coffee shop is concerned, at the said shop liquor was being served beyond permissible hours. My attention is also invited by Mr.Vagyani to the fact that on 16.11.2009 much beyond the working and prescribed hours at about 2:25 hours beyond midnight, four persons were found drinking liquor in Apna Dhaba, therefore, necessary action under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 has been initiated. Further, the lodging licence has *4* wp.3499.11.23.sxw been cancelled. For all these reasons, the Petitioner is not a fit person for grant of the licence. 4 On perusal of the relevant material, I am of the opinion that the authorities could not point out anything which would enable them to reject the licence on the ground that there are violation of other law, namely, the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 or that there are no permissions or sanctions by the Municipal Corporation. The persons against whom the authorities have proceeded and filed criminal cases, can always be proceeded against and while keeping the rights in respect thereof and pleas therein intact, whether, the application could have been considered by the authorities or not, is the only question. 5 Mr.Vagyani was unable to point out anything from the Bombay Police Act, 1951 or Rules made thereunder or the guidelines, which would enable the authorities to refuse the licence on the ground of pending criminal cases which have been lodged for violation of rules or permits under the Bombay Prohibition Act, to consume liquor. Further, the liquor was being served to certain persons beyond working hours by itself and without anything more, has been made a ground for rejection of the application, which action is also difficult to support. 6 In my view, the application of the Petitioner could have been considered irrespective of the pendency of criminal proceedings against erring officers of the Petitioner or all those involved in the conduct of its business. Despite pendency of criminal proceedings under the Bombay Police Act or the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 or the Indian Penal Code or relevant laws, the application could have been considered. Mere direction of this nature would not mean that the Court has expressed any opinion on the aspect of grant of licence to the Petitioner. The Petitioner must, therefore, abide by the outcome of the proceedings that are pending *5* wp.3499.11.23.sxw against the persons, but found to be associated with its activity. Similarly, all those accused in criminal cases will have to face the charges, which will be tried in accordance with law. Without prejudice to this, the authorities shall consider the Petitioner’s application afresh strictly in terms of the applicable rules, regulations and guidelines and pass necessary orders thereon within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the criminal cases and charges therein. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)