1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1055 OF 2011 Shaheen Rafique Khan .. Petitioner V/s The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mr.M.M.Vashi with Mr.A.P.Sathe for the petitioner. Ms.Smita Gaidhani, AGP for the State. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE: 5th December, 2011. P.C.: 1. After hearing counsel for the parties for quite some time, in deference to the observations made by the Court, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the constituted attorney of the petitioner who is present in Court, sought leave to withdraw this petition, with a clarification that the petitioner will conduct the hotel business as per the governing licence condition issued under Rule 45 of the Foreign Liquor Rules, including the licence issued under Section 33 (1) (w) & (y) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 by the Commissioner of Police to keep the place of public entertainment open. Petition is allowed to be withdrawn accordingly. 2. At this state, counsel for the petitioner submits that it may be clarified that the petitioner would be free to keep the restaurant 2 open as per the condition specified in Notification dated 30th April, 2010. Indeed, the said Notification does permit the petitioner to keep the restaurant open till 03.00 a.m., but, that exemption is granted only for the limited purpose of Section 19 of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 and cannot control the condition imposed by the Commissioner of Police in the licence issued under the provisions of the Bombay Police Act to keep the place of public entertainment open during specified hours mentioned therein. The condition stipulated in the licence granted in exercise of powers under the Bombay Police Act ought to prevail also because of the Condition No.7 in the abovesaid Notification, which clearly states that the exemption granted in the said Notification is related only to the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. 3. Amongst others, the grievance was made by the petitioner before us that other similarly placed persons have been allowed to keep the hotels open not only for the purpose of Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, but also by modifying the licence condition issued in their favour by the Commissioner of Police under Section 33 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 to keep the place of 3 public entertainment open up to 03.00 a.m. This factual position is refuted by the learned AGP. 4. The learned AGP on instructions states that the Government policy is operational only in respect of Four Star and Five Star Hotels and in no other cases. She however fairly accepts that the reply affidavit filed before the Court concedes that for some cases (other than the Four Star & Five Star Hotels) the licence to keep the place of public entertainment open, has been given till 03.00 a.m. The affidavit however states that those cases will be reviewed. On instructions, the learned AGP states that such cases are not more than five or six, and even in respect of those cases, the authorities would immediately take appropriate remedial measures so as to bring their licence condition in conformity with the extant Government policy. She submits that, that will be done within a period of 10 days from today. That assurance is accepted. If that is done, the argument canvassed by the petitioner about discrimination amongst same class of hotels would not be available. 5. As aforesaid, petition is allowed to be withdrawn. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)