1 SSK/9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2101 OF 2009 Ashok Dewan ....Petitioner Versus K. H. S. James & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. K. R. Tiwari, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. M. S. Mhambrey, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. D. B. Sawant, Advocate for Intervenor. Mr. P. A. Pol, PP for the State CORAM : D. B. BHOSALE & R. V. MORE, JJ. DATED : 23rd APRIL, 2010. P.C.: Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has made the following prayer: “ (b) By a suitable writ, order or direction, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to immediately take action and thereby close down the Hotel Mansi Sensational situated at C.T.S. No.223, Chakala, Andheri East, Mumbai., for not having valid licences as required under the law.” 2 3. Admittedly, Respondent No.3 has been running the hotel Mansi/ Sensational since the year-2000-2001. According to the petitioner, Respondent No.3 does not hold licences which are required to run a Restaurant/Hotel. Admittedly, the following licences are necessary for running such a Restaurant/Hotel: a) Licence in form PPEL under Bombay Police Act for conducting permit room cum restaurant. b) Premises licence under Bombay Police Act for playing orchestra. c) Licence for serving liquour under Bombay Prohibition Act in form FL-III. d) Eating House licence under Sec.394 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. e) Licence under Shop and Establishment Act. f) Licence under Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules. 3 4. The Respondent No.3 claims that they hold the aforesaid licences and all the licences are valid as of today and, therefore, they are entitled to run the hotel. We would not like to examine the contentions raised by the parties in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and we are satisfied that the following order shall meet the ends of justice: i) All the concerned authorities which have issued the licences for running the hotel Mansi/ Sensational shall examine whether the licences issued by them are valid/subsist as of today within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If they find that Respondent No.3 either does not hold any particular licence or period of the licence has been expired, it may proceed to take appropriate action against the hotel run by Respondent No.3. It is open to the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities with the copy of this order to enable them to comply with this order. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. 4 5. It is needless to state that before taking any action against Respondent No.3, an opportunity of being heard be given the them. The writ petition is disposed of. (R. V. MORE, J.) (D. B. BHOSALE, J.)