1 mgj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.995 of 2009 Shri Sanjiva Babu Shetty ..Petitioner vs. 1 State of Maharashtra & ors. ..Respondents Mr.P.C.Kansara i/b Kansara and Thanekar for petitioner Mr.Shekhar Ingawale, A.G.P. for respondents CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA J. 31st August, 2009 P.C. 1 Rule. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. The petition is taken up for final hearing. 2 By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the decisions dated 19th December, 2008 and 7th May, 2009 passed by respondent nos.3 and 4 respectively. By an order passed by respondent no.3 dated 19th December, 2008, the licence issued to the 2 petitioner under the provisions of the Bombay Police Act has been suspended for 60 days on the ground that the petitioner has committed breach of Rules 8(1), 8(2), 21A and 24 of the Entertainment Rules, 1953. On an appeal preferred therefrom by the petitioner to the Minister, i.e. respondent no.4, by an order dated 7th May 2009 the suspension of the petitioner s licence is reduced from 60 days to 7 days on the ground that the punishment is harsh. Respondent no.4 has held in his order dated 7th May 2009 that the order passed by respondent no.3 is in violation of the law laid down by the statute and interpreted by the Courts of law. The petitioner has correctly argued that if the order is passed in violation of the provisions of law, then the entire order ought to have been set aside and reduction in the suspension period from 60 days to 7 days on the ground that the punishment is 3 harsh, does not arise. 3 The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has also pointed out that the show cause notice is dated 9th October, 2007. Thereafter the licence of the petitioner has been renewed in March, 2008. It is submitted that in the unreported decision of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.102 of 1999, this Court has inter alia held: .....When the competent authority renewed the licence in favour of the petitioner after such offences were committed by the petitioner, the license authority has no power, competence or jurisdiction to take such offence into consideration for cancellation or suspension of licence. On this ground alone, the order passed by respondent no.1 on 18/9/1998 and confirmed in appeal by Respondent no.2 cannot be sustained. The learned Advocate appearing for the 4 petitioner has, therefore, submitted that the impugned orders dated 19th December, 2008 and 7th May, 2009 passed by respondent nos.3 and 4 respectively pursuant to the show cause notice issued on 9th October, 2007 after which the licence of the petitioner was renewed on 31st March, 2008 are not sustainable and needs to be set aside. In my view, the Advocate for the petitioner petitioner is correct in his submission. 4 However, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondents has pointed out to this Court that at the instance of the petitioner two offences committed by the petitioner after renewal of the licence in March, 2008 were also decided by the authorities whilst hearing the show cause notice dated 9th October, 2007. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner states on instructions from the petitioner that the petitioner will have no objection if fresh 5 show cause notice/s is/are issued qua the said two offences allegedly committed by the petitioner after the renewal of licence in March 2008 and the petitioner shall not raise the defence at the time of answering the show cause notice that the alleged offence/s is/are dealt with whilst deciding the show cause notice dated 9th October, 2007. In view thereof, I pass the following order. i) The impugned orders dated 19th December, 2008 and 7th May, 2009 passed by respondent nos.3 and 4 respectively are set aside. ii) Respondent no.3 shall be at liberty to issue fresh show cause notice/s pertaining to the said two offences allegedly committed by the petitioner after renewal of the licence on 31st March 2008 which offences were decided by the impugned orders at the instance of the petitioner. iii) The petitioner through his Advocate 6 undertakes that upon receiving fresh show cause notice/s as set out in clause (ii) above, he shall not raise an objection to the effect, that the alleged offences have already been dealt with/decided by respondent no.3 and 4 whilst deciding the show cause notice dated 9th October, 2007. iv) The fresh show cause notice/s issued by the authorities as set out in clause (ii) above will be decided on its own merits and all contentions of the parties except what is stated in clause (iii) above are kept open. v) In view of the aforesaid writ petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.)