IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.428 OF 2008 Manjunath D.Naik ...Petitioner V/s. The Commissioner of Police & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mrs.Veena Thadani i/b Mr.Vishal Thadani for Petitioner. Mr.Shekhar Ingawale, A.G.P. for Respondents. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. FEBRUARY 22, 2008. FEBRUARY 22, 2008. FEBRUARY 22, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Even if I were to accept the argument of the Petitioner that the charge of violation of provisions of Rule 7(a) was misapplied in the fact situation of the present case, I am more than convinced that the other two charges of violation of provisions of Rule 8(1) and Rule 8(2) has been : 2 : established from the record. 3. In fact, the Petitioner in the reply filed before the first Authority has admitted the fact that he had given the restaurant for running the same to one Chandrashekhar M.Shetty for some time. It is not in dispute that no prior permission was taken from appropriate Authority in that behalf. One of the license condition clearly provides that the license is nontransferable one. Inspite of that if the Petitioner has chosen to allow the business to be conducted by third party without prior permission of the Authority, no fault can be found with the action taken by the Authorities for suspension of the license for a period of sixty days. 4. The argument of the Petitioner that the period of suspension of license is excessive, does not commend to me. In fact, the show-cause notice was initially issued by the Authority for cancellation of license for violation of stated rules. However, instead of cancelling the license, : 3 : the Authority has shown indulgence to the Petitioner by only suspending the same for only sixty days. The Authority has also taken into account the fact that the Petitioner was given stern warning in the year 1999 for violation of terms and conditions of the license. The fact that such stern warning was issued by the Authorities in the year 1999 is not disputed. It is a different matter that the same has not been adverted to in the show-cause notice; but such warning was issued, is an admitted fact. Inspite of such warning, the Petitioner has chosen to permit third party to conduct the business of the restaurant under the license issued to the Petitioner without prior approval. If so, no fault can be found with the ultimate conclusion reached by the Authority in suspending the license of the Petitioner for sixty days. That view in my opinion is appropriate and warranted in the fact situation of the present case. Hence, dismissed. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.