1 904.wp7427.11 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7427 OF 2011 Shri Bharat Brahmadutt Singh Thakur Owner of Indiana Restaurant & Bar. ....Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Respondents Mr. P. K. Dhakephalkar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. P.C. Kansara, Advocate for Petitioner. Ms. P.S. Cardozo, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. CORAM:- GIRISH GODBOLE, J DATED:- DECEMBER 2, 2011 P.C. 1. In this Writ Petition what is challenged is the Order dated 19th February, 2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Heard Quarter – 1) thereby suspending the police licence No. 58/Tardev issued to the Petitioner under the provisions of the Rules for Keeping the Place of Public Entertainment, 1953 framed by the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai under the provisions of Section 33(w) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. Initially a show cause notice was issued on 25/2/2010 and the licencing Authority had passed an order dated 12th May, 2010 suspending 2 904.wp7427.11 the licence of the Petitioner for a continuous period of 60 days. The Petitioner challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No. 1820 of 2010 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge (S.J. Kathawala, J) on 27/9/2010. Pursuant to the said order the Petitioner was given all the documents, detailed enquiry was conducted and immediately by Order dated 19/2/2011(one of the impugned orders) the Licencing Authority cancelled the police licence. This order was challenged in Appeal No. 15 of 2011, which has been dismissed by impugned Judgment and Order dated 18/8/2011 passed by the Hon’ble Minister (Home Affairs), State of Maharashtra being the Appellate Authority. 2. After arguing Petition for some time, Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner on instructions from Petitioner states that the Petitioner and his partner Dilip Jitendra Singh are ready to accept punishment which was initially imposed namely punishment of suspension of licence for a continuous period of 60 days. The statement is accepted. 3. The initial order of the Licencing Authority was of suspending the licence for 60 days. Merely because that order was set aside at the behest of the Petitioner by this Court, without any special circumstances 3 904.wp7427.11 appearing thereafter the Licencing Authority was not justified in imposing the harsh punishment of cancellation of licence. The Petitioner and his partner are ready to file written undertaking in this Court that they are voluntarily accepting the punishment of suspension of licence for 60 days. I am also satisfied that the impugned order is liable to be modified on account of the fact that the punishment is disproportionately harsh. Hence I pass following order : 4. Subject to the Petitioner and his partner Dilip Singh filing a written undertaking in this Court within one week from today that they are accepting the punishment of suspension of the police licence for a continuous period of 60 days being Licence for keeping a place of public entertainment No. 58/Tardeo; Rule is made partly absolute, thereby reducing the punishment from cancellation to the suspension of llicence. The licence will stand suspended for a continuous period of 60 days commencing from 5th December, 2011 and ending on 2nd February, 2012. If undertakings as aforesaid is not filed within one week, the Writ Petition will stand dismissed without any further reference to the Court. (GIRISH GODBOLE, J)