wp3572-11.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3572 OF 2011 Mr.Behram Sheriar Irani & Ors M/s.New Rezashah & Co (Golden Goose Bar & Restaurant) .. Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents Mr.Pankaj C. Kansara for the petitioners. Mr.R.M.Patne, A.G.P for respondent Nos.1 to 5. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 22nd JUNE 2011. P.C.: . Heard both sides. The request made on the third occasion for adjournment by the learned A.G.P is rejected. 2 The petitioner has been proceeded against for violation of the rules and regulations framed under the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and also of the terms and conditions of the licence which wp3572-11.doc 2 has been issued to the petitioner. 3 The petitioner is running an eating house and also serving Indian made foreign liquor. The eating house and restaurant has all permissions and licences including the licence to keep open place of public entertainment. This is popularly known as police licence. The petitioner also has premises licence and performance licence. The petitioner states that the performance licence is for playing Indian music and orchestra at the establishment. 4 The Licensing Authority issued a show cause notice dated 4th February 2010 alleging several lapses, deficiencies and violations of the terms and conditions of the licence. The show cause notice refers to certain instances which occurred on 26th November 2009. 5 It is alleged that 12 lady waitresses were found to be indulging in indecent and vulgar acts at the establishment and the petitioner deliberately encouraged them to do so. The petitioner wp3572-11.doc 3 has also violated the terms and conditions of the licence and Rule 8(2) by not remaining present at the establishment and the person one Girish Patil was found present at this place of business. For all these reasons, the petitioner was told to show cause as to why the licence should not be suspended. 6 The petitioner replied to the show cause notice and pointed out that there is no violation of the terms and conditions. The said Girish Patil is not the manager, but one Mohan Sawant has been appointed as such. The petitioner’s specific case in reply to the show cause notice was that Mr.Mohan Sawant was present at the establishment. The said Mohan Sawant had also represented the establishment before the Licensing Authority. He is already appointed as a manager and his name is endorsed on the police licence. As far as the allegation that the lady waitresses have been found to have indulged in indecent acts, a criminal case has been filed at the instance of the police, Gamdevi Police Station and the same is pending. It was also pointed out that there is no violation of the terms and conditions of the licence and the petitioner has the requisite permissions. wp3572-11.doc 4 7 In the order passed on the show cause notice on 19th February 2011, the licensing authority holds that the petitioner’s contention that in the first criminal case the petitioner has been acquitted is correct and rest of the cases are pending and, therefore, no cognizance can be taken thereof to proceed against the petitioner. However, the petitioner’s licence was suspended on the ground that the same was earlier suspended for five days in 2002 and three days in 2009 and, therefore, he is repeatedly indulging in acts which have been found to be objectionable. In the order of the licensing authority on the show cause notice, there is no reference to any of the contentions raised in the reply to the show cause notice, leave alone, that Mohan Sawant was not manager or that his name was not found endorsed in the licence or that the person present at site was not authorised or appointed by the petitioner. Thus, accepting the petitioner’s case in part, but without any reference to the other allegations and reply thereto, the licensing authority proceeded to suspend the licence for 30 days. wp3572-11.doc 5 8 The order was challenged in an appeal and the Appellate Court by passing a stereo-type and mechanical order has not adverted to any of the contentions, either raised before the licensing authority or prior thereto in reply to the show cause notice, so also, in the memo of appeal. Infact, para 6 of the order passed by the Minister of Home, Government of Maharashtra is worded identically in all matters. I had already observed that it cannot be a coincidence that the Appellate Authority finds that every establishment is repeatedly violating the terms and conditions of the licence. If the licence was suspended for five days and three days in 2002 and 2009, one does not know how the Appellate Authority concludes that the petitioner is repeated defaulter. Further, there is no reference to any criminal case or it is pending or how the terms and conditions of the licence have been violated and in what manner. Similarly, the stereotype and mechanical conclusion of violation of Rule 8(2) of the Rules is totally unjustified and uncalled. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no necessity of deciding any larger controversy. The petitioner has satisfied this Court that its intervention under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is called for as the impugned wp3572-11.doc 6 orders are vitiated by total non application of mind and are perverse. In such circumstances, both orders are quashed and set aside. The petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)