bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7276 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7276 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7276 OF 2008 Yar Mohammed Kallan & anr. Partner of M/s.Missile Restaurant ... Petitioners v/s State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents Mr.P.C.Kansara i/by M/s.Kansara & Thanekar for petitioners. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 5. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 17TH DECEMBER, 2008 17TH DECEMBER, 2008 17TH DECEMBER, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed by the licensing authority and the appellate authority cancelling his licence for running a place of public entertainment. By an order dated 9.10.2007, the licensing authority, after considering the fact that several cases were pending against the petitioners and that the petitioners had been fined in several other cases, cancelled the licence issued to the petitioners by its order dated 9.10.2007. 2. An appeal was preferred by the petitioners under 2 Section 33 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. This appeal was also dismissed by the appellate authority. The appellate authority has observed that the petitioners have violated the provisions of law and has also breached the conditions of the licence. The appellate authority therefore rejected the appeal on 30.6.2008. 3. The learned advocate for the petitioners brings to my notice several judgments of this Court in which this Court has taken a consistent view that the licence cannot be cancelled merely on the ground that criminal cases are pending against the licensee. 4. In the present case, an affidavit has been filed by the Senior Inspector of Police, Desk-X, Theatre Branch, at Office of the Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai, in which he has stated that 33 cases were filed against the petitioner and out of these cases, the petitioner was held guilty in 27 of them and fines were imposed. Six other cases are pending before the Court. 5. In my view, the petitioners have a valid grievance. The respondents could not have cancelled his licence only on account of pending criminal cases against him. The list of cases registered against the restaurant, placed on record by the learned A.G.P., indicates that 3 the petitioners’ employees i.e. waiters have been fined in 2006 in cases registered against them. The licence was renewed even thereafter. This would obviously indicate that the respondents did not consider the offences to be serious. 6. Thus, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b).