1 903.wp8079.11 ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8079 OF 2011 Mr. Darshansingh L. Bhatia Meredian Restaurant & Bar. ....Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Respondents Mr. Pankaj Kansara, Advocate for Petitioner. Ms. P.S. Cardozo, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. CORAM:- GIRISH GODBOLE, J DATED:- NOVEMBER 25, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Kansara, Advocate for Petitioner and Ms. Cardozo, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard by consent of the parties. Petition is taken up on board for final hearing. 3. Show cause notice dated 10/9/2009 was issued to the Petitioner under Rule 27 of the 1953 Rules framed under Section 33 of the B.P. Act, 2 903.wp8079.11 1951 for violation of Rules 8(1), 8(2), 6, 21(a) and 24. This was done on the basis of the inspection of the establishment made on 21/7/2009 at 23.40 p.m.. 15 lady waitresses were found to be present in the establishment and were behaving in obscene manner with the customers. The Petitioner was found to be absent in the establishment and one Yogesh Shriniwas Ganiga was found to be conducting business. Petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice on 29/9/2009 in which it was contended that the said Yogesh Ganiga was an employee. It was contended that the Petitioner was very much present but the Officer deliberately and falsely mentioned the name of Yogesh Ganiga as the conductor. It is however, important to note that this explanation was clearly an afterthought and the presence of Yogesh Ganiga was not denied, so also the fact that Yogesh Ganiga was not authorised to represent the Petitioner in terms of Rules 8(1), 8(2) was not denied. It is not the case of the Petitioner that he had obtained a valid authorisation from the police authorities for Mr. Yogesh Ganiga. 4. The licencing authority passed the impugned order on 19/2/2011 and the entertainment licence of the Petitioner was suspended for a continuous period of 60 days. The Appeal filed by the Petitioner has been 3 903.wp8079.11 dismissed leading to filing of this Writ Petition. 5. After having heard the Advocates for the Petitioner and Respondents at length on 23/11/2011, I have reached a conclusion that though the violation of Rules 8(1), 8(2) had been proved the punishment was too harsh. Today the Petitioner has tendered an affidavit in the court in which it has been stated in paragraph-3 that the Petitioner will undertake not to serve liquor in the establishment for a period of 30 days from 25th November, 2011 to 24th December, 2011, both days inclusive. 6. In my opinion interests of justice would be met if the order of punishment is confirmed but instead of 60 days the suspension is reduced and shall operate from 25th November, 2011 to 24th December, 2011. 7. Rule made partly absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. (GIRISH GODBOLE, J)