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 WRIT PETITION NO.1292 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1292 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.1292 OF 2008 Vinoda Sunder Shetty Proprietress of M/s.Ganesh Lunch Home & Permit Room. .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.P.C.Kansara for the petitioner. Mr.Shekhar Ingawale, A.G.P for the respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. J. J. DATE : 11th June, 2008 DATE : 11th June, 2008 DATE : 11th June, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The petitioner is a lady. She is carrying on business as proprietress of Ganesh Lunch Home and Permit Room in Mumbai. The said restaurant and bar business is carried on in accordance with the licence issued by the Licensing Authority exercising powers under Bombay Police Act, 1951. 2. The subject proceedings are for violation of the Rule and conditions of the licence. The breach alleged is regarding the opening and closure hours of the establishment. The allegation is that the establishment has been kept open beyond the stipulated closing hours. This was noticed by the Licensing Authority and since there is no rectification of the said defect or :2: deficiency, it was constrained to suspend the licence for 30 days which action has been upheld by the Appellate Authority. However, the Appellate Authority interfered with the quantum of punishment imposed by the Licensing Authority and instead of 30 days of suspension it substituted the penalty with suspension of 15 days. 3. When this petition was placed before me, a statement was made by Mr.Kansara that save and accept this deficiency and defect/violation there is no other act alleged to have been committed by the establishment. There are no cases registered for violation of the rules and regulations or terms and conditions of the licence. Thus, save and accept this technical breach there is no other violation is the contention. 4. The learned A.G.P. sought time to produce record and accordingly produced the same. The record indicates that in the past also the establishment was kept open beyond closing hours. It was being closed sometime at about 1.30, 1.45/2.00 hours. This is well past midnight. If the establishment is continuing in such a manner, then, the authorities rightly took the view that it has to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions. :3: 5. Mr.Kansara does not seriously dispute that for this lapse which is repeated, some penalty may be imposed. However, the period should be reasonable. According to him the period of 30 days was reduced to 15 days but even that is excessive. 6. On the last occasion, I called upon the petitioner who is a lady, to file an affidavit-cum-undertaking before this Court with regard to compliance with the terms and conditions of the licence. Accordingly, she has filed the affidavit and has stated that after the demise of her late husband Sunder Shetty she is looking after the business personally. Her son-in-law Umesh Chowta is assisting her in as much as she has four daughters and no son. She has given names of employees employed. She says on oath that one Yogesh Shetty and Ravi Shetty are employed by her. She undertakes that an application in the office of respondent No.3 to record the name of her son-in-law Umesh as manager will be duly filed on or before 15th June, 2008. 7. Upon taking instructions Mr.Kansara makes a statement that from tomorrow i.e 12th June, 2008 till 15th June, 2008 the petitioner’s establishment will remain closed and no activities which are permitted to :4: be carried out at the same, would be carried out till the said date. He states that the petitioner undertakes to comply with Rule 8(1) and 8(2) by filing the necessary application on or before the above date. In the light of this statement, the learned A.G.P states that this Court should pass appropriate orders. 8. In view of the affidavit-cum-undertaking and the statement made on instructions, it is directed that from 12th June, 2008 till 15th June, 2008 or till such time as the petitioner makes an application to the Licensing Authority in terms of above and produces a copy thereof duly acknowledged by the Licensing Authority, she shall not carry on the activities permitted in the establishment. The orders impugned in the petition are confirmed subject to the substitution and modification as above. There will be no orders as to costs. Needless to state that this order does not prevent the authorities from proceeding against the petitioner if they notice any violation of the terms and conditions of the licence or breach of rules and regulations in future. Petition disposed off. No costs. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)