1 cr-wp-2864-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.W.P. NO. 2864 OF 2010 Shri. Amardeepsingh Chadha ..Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr. Amit A. Karande Adv. for petitioner Mr. P.A.Pol PP for State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : OCT. 14, 2010 IN CHAMBER P.C.: 1 Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State. 2 The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of a hotel i.e. Amardeep hotel situated at Khar Mumbai. He was granted all the necessary licence to run the hotel. However, by order dated 5.4.2010 the respondent no.2 Deputy Commissioner of Police (H.Q.-1) passed an order wherein, it was stated that the licence of the petitioner to run the hotel was suspended for a period of 30 days. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner challenged the same before the Home Department. The said appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 2 cr-wp-2864-10 18.8.2010. 3 The case of the petitioner is that he was very much present when the appeal was heard on 28.6.2010. However, order passed by the appellate authority shows that in fact he was absent on that day, which means that his submissions were not considered. This statement has not been controverted in the reply filed by the State. However, the learned P.P. states that the petitioner was absent as the files do not show that he was present on that day. In support of the submission that the petitioner was present on 28.6.2010, the learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on the gate-pass issued by Mantralaya showing that the petitioner attended Mantralaya on 28.6.2010 for hearing of appeal. The photo copy of the said gate-pass is taken on record and marked `X ’ for identification. The position as to whether in fact, the appellant had actually appeared before the appellate authority on that day, is not clear and hence, in order to give a fair chance to the petitioner, in my view, following order would meet the ends of justice. 4 The order of the appellate authority dated 18.8.2010 is set aside. Appeal is restored to file. The petitioner be given an opportunity to represent his case in the said appeal and thereafter, the order be passed in accordance with law. 5 The learned advocate for the petitioner pointed out that by 3 cr-wp-2864-10 order dated 22.8.2010 this Court had granted protection to the petitioner in W.P.No. 1545 of 2010 in respect of order suspend13/10/2010ing licence for 30 days and this Court has passed the following order in terms of prayer clause (c) which reads as under: “(c) Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, the execution and operation of impugned notice dated 11.5.2010 be stayed; ” 6 The aforesaid interim order was granted to him till the disposal of the appeal and even thereafter to enable the petitioner to challenge the correctness of the decision of the appellate authority if the same is adverse to the petitioner. He prayed that the said relief may be continued. 7 In view of the above facts, the said arrangement can continue till the order of the appellate authority is served on the petitioner. The protection will continue for a further period of one week from the date of passing of the order in order to enable the petitioner to challenge the correctness of the order of the appellate authority if the same is adverse to the petitioner. 8 Writ petition disposed of in above terms. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]