IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Writ petition (Ld) no.1019 of 2008 F.K.Irani ..Petitioner vs. 1. State of Maharashtra & ors. ..Respondents Mr.P.C.Kansara for petitioner. Mr.Shekhar Ingawale, A.G.P. for respondents. CORAM S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 23rd April, 2008 23rd April, 2008 23rd April, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Mr.Kansara states that the petition would be numbered within one week from today by removing all office objections. 2. The petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. it is directed against the order of the licensing authority dated 16th November, 2007 which is affirmed by the Appellate Authority on 26th March, 2008. 3. The submission is that the licensing authority and the Appellate Authority have failed to apply their mind and have committed errors apparent on the face of record while holding that the licence is liable to be suspended for 30 days. 4. The submission is that the licence is suspended allegedly for violation of Rule 8(1) and (2) of the subject Rules so also Rule 21A thereof. 5. As far as violation of Rules 8(1) and (2) is concerned, in reply to the show cause notice, it was inadvertently mentioned that the Manager who was appointed by the petitioner had expired and, therefore, application was made to substitute his name with that of another employee/Manager. However, if licence itself is perused, it is clear that on the reverse thereof the licensing authority has endorsed that the Manager is one Uday S.Amin. His name is shown as manager in the licence. The entry in that behalf is made pursuant to the application of the petitioner and after accepting necessary fees, endorsement has been made on the reverse of the licence. In such circumstances, there is no question of any violation of Rules 8(1) and (2) in as much as the petitioner has not carried on his business without seeking appropriate permission with regard to alteration or change or appointment of the Manager. The first ground in the show cause notice, therefore, was not available for suspension. 6. As far as the second reason for suspension is concerned, it is alleged that there is violation of Rule 21A. However, the offences registered are alleging violation of Rule 21A but without referring to any acts of indecency and immoral behaviour by lady waitresses at the establishment. If the show cause notice is perused as a whole the allegation is that lady waitresses have been detained beyond working hours. That is how Rule 21A has been violated. 7. When these aspects were brought to my notice and I perused the order under challenge with the assistance of Mr.Kansara and Mr.Ingawale, I called upon Mr.Kansara to place an affidavit on record stating therein the factual position with regard to the pending cases. 8. Affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in which a specific statement is made in paras 2 and 3 that there is no violation of Rule 21A in so far as any immoral or indecent acts of the lady waitresses. The show cause notice proceeds on the basis that they have been detained beyond working hours. 9. Mr.Kansara’s submission is that the petitioner has expressly stated on oath that he would abide by all terms and conditions of the licence, including, employing lady waitresses within the stipulated time. He would give no occasion for the respondents to proceed against him in future as far as this aspect is concerned. The statements and undertakings are accepted. 10. In the peculiar facts of this case, when breach under Rules 8(1) and (2) is not established so also there being technical violation as far as working hours of lady waitresses and there being no material to show that they were engaged in any indecent and immoral acts, the order under challenge can be quashed and set aside. The orders under challenge are quashed and set aside subject to the undertaking and affidavit filed in this Court. The authorities are at liberty to take such steps as are permissible in law if there is a breach of the terms and violation of the undertaking hereafter. 11. Writ petition succeeds to the above extent. There shall be no order as to costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)