1 WP No.740/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 740 OF 2011 Dashrath Tarashankar Singh . .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents Mr.Pankaj C. Kansara, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr A.I.Patel, AGP, for respondent nos 1 to 5. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 15th June, 2011. P.C.: 1. The petitioner has impugned the order passed by the licensing authority and the appellate authority suspending the license of the petitioner's establishment for a period of sixty days. 2. The order dated 10.9.2007 passed by the licensing authority refers to a show cause notice issued to the petitioner. The show cause notice referred to some four instances, where it is stated that the petitioner kept his establishment open beyond the stipulated hours, at a raid conducted at the petitioner's premises it was found that he was absent from the premises, thirdly, it is alleged that the petitioner has permitted lady waitresses to conduct themselves indecently and in a vulgar manner and that he has detained the lady employees working in T 2 WP No.740/2011 the establishment beyond the hours stipulated by the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, 1948. All these constitute violation of the terms and conditions on which the license came to be granted and also all the rules and regulations under the Bombay Police Act, 1951. This show cause notice was issued on 13.6.2007, to which a reply was given by the petitioner on 26.6.2007 through an advocate and he specifically raised the contention that the petitioner and his establishment is not concerned with any of these four instances as cited and alleged. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be proceeded against. 3. The licensing authority has noted this argument in the order passed on 10.9.2007(see page 3). However, he has observed that the argument that the petitioner is not connected with any of the incidents and instances cited in the show cause notice, is not correct. All that has been observed is that in 1992 and 1997 the petitioner's licence was suspended for three days and fifteen days respectively and, therefore, this argument canvassed has no substance. 4. The licensing authority should have applied his mind to the fact that he is concerned with the show cause notice issued in 2007 and cannot, therefore, rely on the instances and incidents which have taken place 10 years back and 15 years back. In the show cause notice it is specifically stated that for the subject instances a show cause notice was issued earlier on 23.11.2005. However, that show cause notice was withdrawn and a subsequent show cause notice dated 13.6.2007 came to be issued. Therefore, the instances that are referred to in the notice 3 WP No.740/2011 which is the subject matter of the present order, are of which year is not clarified, leaving alone, how the petitioner is connected therewith. This is complete non application of mind by the licensing authority. Prima facie, one gets a feeling that the authorities are not serious while proceeding against the erring establishments and persons like the petitioner. If the establishments are found violating the terms and conditions of the license or the provisions of the applicable laws or the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and the rules and regulations framed thereunder, the show cause notice ought to have cited specific instances with dates and other particulars. Once a show cause notice is issued and replies are furnished, the licensing authority, while considering the contents of the said replies and the oral arguments, must advert to the allegations in the show cause notice, replies thereto, the relevant documentary material on record and pass a reasoned order reflecting application of mind. A casual approach is likely to defeat the object and purpose of the enactment and creates an impression that neither the Home Department nor the Police Commissioners are interested in bringing the guilty people to book by punishing and prohibiting indecent and vulgar activities. If as citizens of India these officers are aware of their fundamental duties and they are required to act so as to protect the women against exploitation, then the least that is expected from them, is that they apply their minds to important and vital issues concerning them and act in a manner so as to uphold their reputation and dignity in the society. They do nothing of this kind and pass orders in a mechanical manner. Their orders depict 4 WP No.740/2011 their casual and light attitude. Equally, the appellate authority which is, most of the times the Minister of Home while deciding the appeal never takes into consideration the individual facts and circumstances and his attention is not focused on the arguments in each appeal. The appellate authority's orders are mostly stereotype and contains general observations and conclusions. The appellate authority is not a rubber stamp. It must apply its independent mind and decide each appeal on merits and in accordance with law. If the appeals are also going to be decided in the manner in which the instant appeal is decided, this court will have no option but to issue appropriate directions so that the appeals are hereafter dealt with not by Ministers who are otherwise busy, but by other senior officials of the Home Department. Equally, if the licensing authorities are burdened with other duties, the Home Department should consider delegating their powers to decide matters arising out of violation of the terms and conditions of the license and applicable law to such other senior police officials who are not directly concerned with maintenance of law and order or investigation of serious crimes. This alone would sub-serve the interest of justice and uphold the object and purpose of the Act. 5. I am constrained to make these observations because repeatedly my attention is invited to the basic errors and mistakes in the orders of licensing and Appellate Authorities. In almost every matter either the orders are quashed and set aside or there is a remand. In either event the establishment and those guilty walk away scot-free. With these 5 WP No.740/2011 observations, the impugned orders in this petition are quashed and set aside. The licensing authority shall decide the show cause notice afresh by adverting to each and every argument of the petitioner and the stand taken by him in the reply and pass a reasoned order afresh within a period of six weeks from today. The licensing authority should not be influenced by any observations in the earlier orders of the said authority and that of the Minister. Equally, it is clarified that this court has merely impressed on the authorities the importance of the issues and gravity of the matter. Beyond that this court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the rival contentions. 6. The petition is disposed of in these terms. A copy of this order may be forwarded to the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.)