: 1 : wo,3845.2011.sxw vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3845 OF 2011 Shivkumar P. shourie (M/s.Hotel Soniya Inn) ... Petitioner V/s. The Commissioner of Police Thane & anr. ... Respondents Ms.Veena Thadani for the Petitioner Mr.S.N. Patil, AGP, for the Respondents CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE: JULY 1, 2011. P.C.: 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Licensing Authority on 14.1.2011 and that of the appellate authority dated 30.3.2011 suspending the licence of the petitioner for three months. 2. The Petitioner has been granted a licence under the Bombay Police Act, 1951 which licence has been renewed from time to time. The licence is for an eating house so also for performances. The allegation in the show-cause notice is that there is a violation of Rule 30 of the Rules inasmuch as on 29.9.2010 at about 9.59pm a surprise check was conducted and it was found that there are 52 waitresses, 25 customers and 10 male waiters, who were indulging in indecent and vulgar acts and that is how the petitioner was called : 2 : wo,3845.2011.sxw upon to show cause as to why the licence should not be suspended. 3. However, in the final order of the authority, namely, the licensing authority, it is held that for this violation and breach of the relevant Laws insofar as the incident of 29.9.2010 is concerned, a crime was registered at the Rabodi police station alleging offence punishable under the Bombay Police Act and the concerned waitresses, customers and waiters were tried and they were convicted and fined. However, it was not taken into account for the purposes of the present suspension. The licences are suspended because of the breach of terms and conditions and violation of the rules and regulations. There is no incident or violation which has been mentioned save and except this incident of 29.9.2010. The licencing authority's conclusion is not based on this conviction and sentence or fine. Yet, the appellate authority upholds the suspension on the ground that there is a violation of Rule 30 of the relevant rules. For holding that there is a violation of this rule, the appellate authority relies on the same incident and crime for which the persons were tried and convicted and sentenced to pay fine. In such circumstances, if the suspension of the licence is sought to be justified and upheld on the ground and for a reason which is not at all the basis for the order of licencing authority, then, the conclusion is inevitable i.e. there is total non-application of mind on the part of the authority. They have failed to abide by the basic tenets of law that once the show-cause notice alleges one ground and the order is not based thereon but some other ground then that is not permissible. The order must be based on the grounds in the showcause notice and if the final conclusion is not based thereon then : 3 : wo,3845.2011.sxw the appellate authority in the least cannot justify the order impugned before it and uphold it on grounds that have not found favour with the licencing authority. Precisely that has not been done in the instant case and on this short ground alone, both the orders deserve to be quashed and set aside and they are accordingly quashed and set aside. 4. The petition succeeds in these terms. No costs. However, it would be permissible for the authorities to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)