wp7430-11.sxw 1 spb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7430 OF 2011 Bharat B. Thakur, Parners of M/s. Hotel Uma Palace ... Petitioner. V/s. 1 State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. --- Mr. Pankaj Kansara for the Petitioner. Ms. P. S. Cardozo, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. --- CORAM: G.S. GODBOLE, J. DATED : 28th NOVEMBER, 2011. P.C. : 1 Heard Mr. Kansara for the Petitioner and Ms. Cardozo, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5. 2 Perused the record of the case which has been produced for my perusal. Rozanama dated 15.11.2010 clearly shows that a prayer for cross- examination was made by Advocate Mr. Kansara. However, by a separate order, the said prayer was rejected on the ground that the proceedings were quasi judicial proceedings and hence, prayer for cross-examination cannot be granted. In fact in the subsequent hearing conducted on 28.01.2011, Shri Bharat B.Thakur who was present at the time of hearing wp7430-11.sxw 2 stated that he does not wish to cross-examine the witness. Mr. Kansara relies upon the Written Arguments to show that this statement was without prejudice. It is difficult to agree with this submission. The contention about the cross-examination appears to be an after thought. In the facts of this case, it is not disputed that at the time of inspection of the establishment on 23.01.2010, none of the co-licensees was present in the establishment. According to Mr. Kansara, Mukesh Durga Prasad Singh was the son of one of the licensee. However, it is an admitted position that the name of Mukesh Durga Prasad Singh had not been got endorsed on the license as contemplated by the Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Rules For Keeping the Place for Public Entertainment, 1953. Hence, the charge of violation of Rules 8(1) and 8(2) has been duly proved. The Licensing Authority has used its discretion and has suspended the license only for 10 days. Though the lady waitresses were actually not apprehended in the establishment at the time of inspection, the Panchas who were present stated that the lady waitresses had escaped from another door which has been prepared for having entry through a cellar which could not be easily detected. 3 In my opinion, violation of Rules 8(1) and 8(2) is established and for that purpose a discretionary order of only suspending license for 10 wp7430-11.sxw 3 days has been passed and the said order has been confirmed in Appeal. Hence, no case for interference is made out. 4 The Writ Petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed. 5 On the oral request of Mr. Kansara implementation of this order is stayed for a period of two weeks. In case the Petitioner wants to accept the punishment of suspension of license of 10 days, he shall give advance notice of one day to the concerned Respondents, indicating period of 10 days for which the punishment will operate. [G. S. GODBOLE, J.]