1 mgj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.1215 of 2009 1 Jan Mohammed Mohd. Kasin and others ..Petitioners vs. 1 State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents Mr.P.C.Kansara i/b M/s Kansara and Thanekar for petitioners. Ms.Uma Palsuledesai, A.G.P. for respondents CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA J. 22 nd September, 2009 P.C. 1 Rule. Respondents waive service. 2 Since a short question is involved in this writ petition, the writ petition is taken up for hearing forthwith. 3 By the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the orders dated 27 th February 2009 and 25 th June, 2009 passed by respondent nos. 3 and 4 suspending the 2 licence of the petitioner for running his lodging business under the name and style of Hotel Prince Palace at Santacruz. A show cause notice dated 10 th March, 2008 was issued to the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has violated rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Rules for keeping the place of Public Entertainment, Greater Bombay, 1953 (the said Rules). It was also alleged in the show cause notice that the petitioner has breached the provisions of Rule 23 by allowing the business of prostitution in the establishment of the petitioner. After hearing the petitioner respondent no.3 by his order dated 27 th February, 2009 suspended the licence issued to the petitioner under the Bombay Police Act, 1951 for 90 days on the ground that the petitioner has committed breach of Rules 8(1), 8(2), 23 and 24. In an appeal preferred therefrom respondent no.4 by his order dated 25 th June, 2009 reduced the 3 suspension period from 90 days to 30 days. 4 The main contention of the petitioner before this Court is that the initial 60 days suspension which is later reduced to 30 days is on the basis that the petitioner is guilty of carrying on the business of prostitution in his establishment. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the F.I.R. filed in the instant case, from which it appears that on a complaint filed by an N.G.O. to the effect that one Mohan Singh is forcing his daughter into prostitution, the police authorities had set a trap for the said Mohan Singh by setting up a fake customer who at the instance of the police had booked a room in the establishment of the petitioner. It is because of this trap set up by the police authorities through a fake customer a raid was carried out at the petitioner s establishment and the said Mohan 4 Singh was arrested. In fact the police authorities and the fake customer have used the room in the establishment of the petitioner to book the culprit and the petitioner has co-operated to the extent possible. 5 In view of the aforesaid facts , I am of the view that it cannot be contended by the respondents that the petitioner is allowing/carrying on the business of prostitution in his establishment. The learned Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that though the petitioner may not be guilty of violating Rule 23 he has violated Rules 8(1), 8(2)and 24 for which he needs to be punished. It is contended that the petitioner has on earlier occasions, also violated the Rules for which he was penalised. It is submitted that in view of the violation of Rules 8(1) 8(2) and 24, the petitioner s licence ought to be 5 suspended for a period of 30 days. 6 Considering the aforesaid submissions advanced on behalf of the Advocates for the petitioner as well as the respondents, I pass the following order. i) The order dated 25 th June, 2009 passed by respondent no.4 is quashed and set aside. ii) The petitioner is held guilty of committing breach of rules 8(1), 8(2) and 24 of the said Rules. iii) The petitioner s licence shall stand suspended for a period of 15 days from 1 st October, 2009 to 15 th October, 2009. 7 It is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents that this Court should record that this order shall not be used as a precedent in any other case. Needless to add that this order is passed after considering the peculiar facts of this case. 6 8 The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly with no orders as to costs. (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.)