-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5118 OF 2008 Vasim Nabilal Nadaf .. Petitioner. V/s. Dy. Commissioner of Police & Ors. .. Respondents. --- Mr. A.B.Tejane for the Petitioner. Mr. P.P.Kahade, AGP for the respondent nos. 1 to 3. --- CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 16TH JULY, 2008. DATED : 16TH JULY, 2008. DATED : 16TH JULY, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard Mr.Tejane, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Kahade, AGP for the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. 3. This petition takes exception to the order dated 4th of June, 2005 passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Police, Solapur city Solapur as confirmed by the respondent no.2, whereby the eating house licence in respect of Petitioner’s Hotel in the name ‘A-1 Restaurant’ is cancelled. Perusal of the order of respondent nos. 1 and 2 disclose that eating house licence was cancelled only on the ground that the offence -: 2 :- is registered against the petitioner and his brothers under sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 337, 323, 504 of I.P.C., under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and under section 4/25 of the Arms Act and that a criminal case arising out of above crime is pending. 4. The issue whether the licence of the eating house can be cancelled on the ground of pendency of the criminal case is no more res integra. This point is covered by the division bench judgment in writ petition no.1041/1995 decided on 16.08.1985. This judgment is followed by the learned single judge of this court in Dilip J. Bhatia vs. The Commissioner of Police, Thane Dilip J. Bhatia vs. The Commissioner of Police, Thane Dilip J. Bhatia vs. The Commissioner of Police, Thane and Anr., reported in 2001 (1) Bom. C.R. 448. and Anr., reported in 2001 (1) Bom. C.R. 448. and Anr., reported in 2001 (1) Bom. C.R. 448. In both these above decisions it is held that pendency of criminal cases is no ground for cancellation of business licence unless the licensee or his agent is convicted of such offences. 5. It is not disputed that neither the petitioner nor his brother are convicted in above criminal case and same is pending before the JMFC Court at Solapur. In that view of the matter, the order impugned does not stand scrutiny of law and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside. I, therefore, disposed of the petition by passing the following order : -: 3 :- 6. The impugned orders passed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 are hereby quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Rule is made absolute accordingly. ( R.V. MORE, J.) .....