:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1629 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1629 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 1629 OF 2008 Viraj Ambalal Rawal ] Proprietor of M/s. Hotel Bombay ] Fancy, through his C.A. ] Ashok K. Shetty, situated at ] Sai Niwas Building, Carnac ] Bunder, 145 P. D’Mello ] Road, Mumbai 400 001 ]..Petitioner versus 1. State of Maharashtra ] (summons served through ] Office of Government ] Pleader, High Court, ] Writ Cell, Mumbai) ] 2. Commissioner of Police ] Gr. Mumbai (Hotel Branch) ] Crawford Market, Mumbai ] 3. Dy. Commissioner of Police ] H-Q. I, Mumbai ] 4. Hon’ble Home Minister, ] Mantralaya, Mumbai ] 5. Senior Inspector of Police ] MRA Police Station, Mumbai ]..Respondents Mr. Pankaj C. Kansara i/b. Kansara & Thankear for the Petitioner. Mr. Shekhar Ingwale, AGP for the Respondents - State. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 5TH AUGUST, 2008. DATE : 5TH AUGUST, 2008. DATE : 5TH AUGUST, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged :2: the order of suspension of the licence under the Rules for Keeping Places of Public Entertainment in Greater Bombay, 1953, confirmed by the Appellate Authority. 3. The Licensing Authority issued a notice to the petitioner for breach of provisions of Rule 8(1) and 8(2), which reads as follows:- "8. (1) Unless a person permitted to act "8. (1) Unless a person permitted to act "8. (1) Unless a person permitted to act under sub-rule (2) (in this rule referred to under sub-rule (2) (in this rule referred to under sub-rule (2) (in this rule referred to as "The agent") is present no person keeping as "The agent") is present no person keeping as "The agent") is present no person keeping a place of public entertainment shall absent a place of public entertainment shall absent a place of public entertainment shall absent himself therefrom during the time it is open himself therefrom during the time it is open himself therefrom during the time it is open without obtaining the previous permission of without obtaining the previous permission of without obtaining the previous permission of the Licensing Authority, to be endorsed on the Licensing Authority, to be endorsed on the Licensing Authority, to be endorsed on the licence. the licence. the licence. (2) No person keeping a place of Public (2) No person keeping a place of Public (2) No person keeping a place of Public Entertainment shall at any time permit an Entertainment shall at any time permit an Entertainment shall at any time permit an agent to act for him in the management of agent to act for him in the management of agent to act for him in the management of such place without the like permission such place without the like permission such place without the like permission similarly endorsed. similarly endorsed. similarly endorsed. Provided that permission to act as agent Provided that permission to act as agent Provided that permission to act as agent shall not ordinarily be refused if the shall not ordinarily be refused if the shall not ordinarily be refused if the person is a member of the licencees family person is a member of the licencees family person is a member of the licencees family or his paid servant. or his paid servant. or his paid servant. Provided that no such permission shall be Provided that no such permission shall be Provided that no such permission shall be endorsed of the licence unless, the agent endorsed of the licence unless, the agent endorsed of the licence unless, the agent affixed his signature of if he is affixed his signature of if he is affixed his signature of if he is illiterate, his left thumb impression on the illiterate, his left thumb impression on the illiterate, his left thumb impression on the licence in the presence of the Commissioner licence in the presence of the Commissioner licence in the presence of the Commissioner of Police duly countersigned by the of Police duly countersigned by the of Police duly countersigned by the Commissioner and furnishes to the Commissioner and furnishes to the Commissioner and furnishes to the Commissioner three additional specimen Commissioner three additional specimen Commissioner three additional specimen signature or as the case may be, three, left signature or as the case may be, three, left signature or as the case may be, three, left thumb impressions duly countersigned by the thumb impressions duly countersigned by the thumb impressions duly countersigned by the Commissioner of Police. Commissioner of Police. Commissioner of Police. Provided further that in case of licence Provided further that in case of licence Provided further that in case of licence :3: issued before the date of this notification, issued before the date of this notification, issued before the date of this notification, the agent shall comply with the provisions the agent shall comply with the provisions the agent shall comply with the provisions of the proceeding provided within two months of the proceeding provided within two months of the proceeding provided within two months from that date." from that date." from that date." 4. After reply and hearing, the Licensing Authority found that there was a breach of Rule 8(1) in that at the time of the raid the place was being managed by one Manager Prakash Anand Shetty who was appointed by the petitioner. The Licensing Authority also found a breach of Rule 8(2) in that the petitioner had not informed the Licensing Authority the name of any Manager. Further, the Authority found that, contrary to Rule 6, lady employees were found in the establishment after 9.30 p.m. which is also not permitted under Section 33 of The Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. The Licensing Authority therefore suspended the petitioner’s licence for a period of 10 days. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. 5. Mr. Kansara, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the order of the suspension of licence was not sustainable because the petitioner had never appointed Prakash Anand Shetty, and, therefore, the ground stated by the Licensing Authority is not tenable. There is no merit in this argument because it is not necessary :4: that it must be shown that the person who is found managing the place in the absence of the owner was formally appointed as a Manager. It is sufficient to constitute a breach of the Rule if the Authority has found that the licence holder is absent and the place is being managed by a person who is not authorised under Rule 8(1) i.e. in respect of whom previous permission is not sought and granted by the Authority. Admittedly, there was no such person who was managing the place. In the circumstances, the breach of Rule 8(1) and 8(2) is obvious. 6. Likewise, there is nothing to show that the finding in regard to breach of Section 33 of The Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, and Rule 6 is vitiated. 7. Mr. Kansara next submitted that the order of suspension is not in accordance with Rule 27, which reads as follows:- "27. The Commissioner of Police shall have "27. The Commissioner of Police shall have "27. The Commissioner of Police shall have the power in his discretion at any time to the power in his discretion at any time to the power in his discretion at any time to cancel a licence granted under these rules cancel a licence granted under these rules cancel a licence granted under these rules or to suspend it for such period as he may or to suspend it for such period as he may or to suspend it for such period as he may specify and to direct the keeper of any specify and to direct the keeper of any specify and to direct the keeper of any place of public entertainment to close such place of public entertainment to close such place of public entertainment to close such place either permanently or temporarily or place either permanently or temporarily or place either permanently or temporarily or otherwise act with reference thereto in otherwise act with reference thereto in otherwise act with reference thereto in :5: order to prevent any obstruction, order to prevent any obstruction, order to prevent any obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger or inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger or inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger or damage to the residents or passengers in the damage to the residents or passengers in the damage to the residents or passengers in the vicinity or to prevent disturbance in such vicinity or to prevent disturbance in such vicinity or to prevent disturbance in such place and every person keeping a place of place and every person keeping a place of place and every person keeping a place of public entertainment shall forthwith comply public entertainment shall forthwith comply public entertainment shall forthwith comply with such direction." with such direction." with such direction." According to the learned counsel for the petitioner unless the Commissioner of Police records the finding that either the licensee is not a suitable person for continuation or it is necessary to prevent any obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger or damage to the residents or passengers in the vicinity or to prevent disturbance, there is no power to direct the suspension. This submission is not based on a correct interpretation of Rule 27. Rule 27 confers on the Commissioner of Police the power to cancel a licence or to suspend it for a specified period of time and to give further specific directions to the keeper of any place of public entertainment in order to prevent any obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger or damage, which must be complied with by the licensee. It is not as if the Rule empowers the Commissioner to suspend a licence only if there is any obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger or damage to the residents or passengers in the vicinity. The submission is :6: therefore liable to be rejected. 8. This Rule is distinct from Rule 238 (3) of Rules for Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Amusement (Other Than Cinemas) Mellas and Tamashas 1960, which has been interpreted by this court in the case of Allahbaksh Ismail Ebrahim vs. Commissioner Allahbaksh Ismail Ebrahim vs. Commissioner Allahbaksh Ismail Ebrahim vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors. [2004(1) ALL MR 677] of Police & Ors. [2004(1) ALL MR 677] of Police & Ors. [2004(1) ALL MR 677]. This decision has been relied on by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. However, it has no application since it is rendered under different Rule. 9. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the petition, which is hereby dismissed. 10. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that since food articles are in the premises, their premises will have to be cleaned. The petitioner is granted permission to clean the premises and for that purpose enter the licence premises for a period of one week from today. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)