IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1040 OF 2007 (MS) Bharat Bhatia ………..Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …..Respondents. Mr. K.N. Joshi, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondents. 3rd March, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The petitioner has stated in the writ petition that he runs a bar/ Discotheque in the name and style of Quest Bar / Ghungroo Restaurant at Astley Hall, Dehradun. Licence for running Discotheque was given to the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Dehradun, but subsequently on the basis of the report of the police authorities, which shows that due to the Discotheque, there is disturbance in the area on a day to day basis, the licence of the petitioner to run the Discotheque has not been renewed. Subsequently, the prayer of the petitioner for renewal of the licence was rejected by the District Magistrate vide order dated 17.5.2007. 2. Aggrieved, the petitioner moved an appeal before the State Government, which was also rejected vide order dated 17.8.2007. Now, the petitioner has filed a writ petition before this Court praying for the following relief: “A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 17.8.2007 (filed as Annexure -12) passed by the respondent No. 1 and order dated 28.5.2007 (filed as Annexure-9) passed by the respondent No. 3. 2 B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to renew the License of petitioner for running the Discotheque in the Quest Bar/Ghungroo Restaurant. C. Issue any suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. D. Award the cost of the petitioner to the petitioner.” 3. There is a report of the Police Authorities on record, which shows that on inspection, it has been found that due to activities in the Discotheque, there is disturbance in the area and recommendation for renewal of licence, if any, was conditional to the fact that the petitioner must ensure that there is no disturbance. It is for the authorities, who are on the spot to find out as to whether actually disturbance is being caused by the Discotheque. 4. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not make a roving enquiry as to whether the Discotheque of the petitioner is causing disturbance in the area or not? There are reports of the authorities that disturbance is being caused by the petitioner and if the District Magistrate in his wisdom and considered opinion feels that the licence is not liable to be renewed, he is fully justified in passing such an order. This court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Magistrate or the State Government. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia,J.) 3.3.2009 Rathour