IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 6053 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 6053 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 6053 OF 2008. Sitaram H. Halwai Prop.of Hotel Sitaram Restaurant & Bar ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors ..Respondents. Mr P. C. Kansara i/b Kansara & Thanekar for the Petitioner. Mr N. P. Deshpande, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 22.08.2008. DATED: 22.08.2008. DATED: 22.08.2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Perused the Petition. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 8.8.2008 passed by Respondent No.3. The Petitioner on 12.8.2008 has preferred an appeal alongwith stay application against this order before the Home Minister, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai. Immediately, on 14.8.2008, the present petition is filed by the Petitioner without giving any opportunity ( 2 ) to the State Government to consider his application for stay. 3. The learned A.G.P.during the course of hearing urged that nobody is expected to expect the decision of the stay application within 24 hours of its filing. He also pointed out that the Petitioner is running the hotel without licence. 4. In my considered view, the present petition has been filed within two days from the date of filing of the appeal, obviously, to take chance to secure interim relief. The Petitioner has produced one order dated 14.8.2008 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 5953 of 2008 and prayed for interim relief. As against this, the learned A.G.P. has produced order passed by the learned Division Bench in W.P.No.1536 of 2008 dated 31st July, 2008, wherein four weeks time was granted to the State Government to decide the application. The learned A.G.P. rightly urged that the order passed by this Court dated 14.8.2008 is a consent order based on concession. Hence, it cannot be cited as a precedent. However, he strongly placed reliance on the Division Bench order dated 31.7.2008 and urged that a reasonable time has to be granted to the State Government to hear and decide the Stay application. In his submission, this petition is ( 3 ) premature. 5. At this stage, Mr Kansara insisted for order of stay till application for stay is heard and decided by the State Government in exercise of its appellate powers. This prayer is strongly opposed by the learned A.G.P. He went a step ahead and successfully pointed out that the Petitioner is running hotel without licence and prayed for appropriate direction. 6. In reply, Mr Kansara, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has applied for renewal of licence well within time but application has not been decided within 30 days. Hence, the licence has been treated as renewed relying on deeming provision engrafted in Rule 13 (A) (1) which reads as under : "Every application for renewal of a licence granted under these rules shall be made at least 30 days before the day on which such licence is to expire. The application shall be accompanied by the licence to be renewed and the appropriate amount of fee as specified in rule 29." (Emphasis supplied). (Emphasis supplied). (Emphasis supplied). 7. The submission made by Mr Kansara is misplaced. The copy of renewal application dated 18.3.2008 is placed on record at page 49, which reads as under: ( 4 ) "To, The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Malwani Division, Mumbai-400 064. Sub:- Application for issuing the renewal of 2008-09 P.P.E.LICENCE No.44 Respected Sir, "I am Shri Sitaram H. Halwai, Proprietor of above BAR & RESTAURANT had Licence for "PPEL" that was issued Department. As per the renewal, I request you to issue me the renewal of P.P.H. Licence and necessary requirements and charges will be paid by me as per rules and regulations. Kindly do the needful and oblige for it. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sitaram Bar & Restaurant. Manager." (Emphasis supplied) (Emphasis supplied) (Emphasis supplied) 8. Reading of Rule 13-A (1) extracted hereinabove makes it mandatory that application ought to be accompanied by the licence to be renewed and the appropriate amount of fee, as specified in Rule 29. Admittedly, the amount of fee has not been paid or deposited by the Petitioner. From the application, it also does not appear that the original licence has been produced before the appropriate authority for renewal. Had it been so, there would have been reference to that effect in the application, the ( 5 ) contents of which are extracted hereinabove. Since the application made for renewal of licence is incomplete, the Petitioner cannot rely on deeming provision to treat his licence as renewed. It is, thus, clear that the petitioner is running hotel without licence. 9. Mr Kansara, learned counsel urged that this Court cannot consider the fact of non-renewal of licence and running of hotel without licence, because this is not the subject matter of this petition. 10. Mr Kansara is right to the extent that this is not an issue involved in the petition but on admitted fact if it comes to the knowledge of the writ Court that in patent violation of Rules and without licence, hotel is being run by the Petitioner, this Court, being a writ Court, cannot close its eyes to a flagrant breach and illegality so as to silently allow the Petitioner to run his hotel illegally. Rather, it would be a duty of the writ Court to take cognizance of this illegality and arrest it, if necessary by invoking writ jurisdiction suo-motu, of course, subject to following principles of natural justice, if necessary. Reliance is placed on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Shree Manohardas Shree Manohardas Shree Manohardas Baba Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Saikhindi and Others v. Baba Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Saikhindi and Others v. Baba Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Saikhindi and Others v. ( 6 ) State of Maharashtra and others, A.I.R. 2005 Bombay State of Maharashtra and others, A.I.R. 2005 Bombay State of Maharashtra and others, A.I.R. 2005 Bombay 350 350 350 (para 13). (para 13). (para 13). 11. In the above premises, this Court in exercise of suo motu powers vested under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, can injunct the Petitioner from running the hotel without licence and direct him to keep it close until his licence is renewed in accordance with the law. 12. In this case, it is not necessary to follow the principles of natural justice in the sense of issuing show cause notice and seeking reply since the Petitioner, admittedly, has not paid or deposited fee as required and has not complied with the requirement of relevant Rule quoted hereinabove, though Mr Kansara was heard in detail on this issue. The Petitioner is, thus, injuncted from running Hotel without licence and this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction directs him to keep it close until licence is renewed in accordance with law. 13. So far as the appeal pending before the Appellate Authority is concerned, it would be open for the State Government to hear the appeal and stay ( 7 ) application filed by the Petitioner in accordance with the law with expeditious despatch, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. 14. No useful purpose will be served by keeping the petition pending. The petition stands disposed of in terms of this order. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)