AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.391 OF 2009 Mrs. Beena Kishore Singh ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. V.T. Tulpule i/b S.P. Ramdasi for the petitioner. Mr. V.B. Konde Deshmukh, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATED : 6TH APRIL, 2009. P.C.:- 1. The petitioner runs a hotel and restaurant in the name and style of M/s. Madhuban Bar & Restaurant at Vile Parle, Bombay. The petitioner has, in this petition, sought a direction restraining the respondents from preventing or obstructing the petitioner from having orchestra in the petitioner's restaurant with six to eight female artists upto 1.30 a.m. in terms of license granted to the AJN 2 petitioner. 2. On 24/3/2009, learned A.P.P. on instructions from Mr. Walmik Sardar, Police Inspector, attached to Vile Parle Police Station made a statement in this court that there is no restriction for the petitioner to run her hotel since whatever violation of law had been found earlier, for that a charge sheet has already been filed. In view of this statement, this court observed that if the petitioner chooses, she may start running her hotel / restaurant. 3. We have heard Mr. Tulpule, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He submitted that despite this court's order, on 4/4/2009 PI Sardar came to the hotel at 9.30 p.m. and asked the petitioner to stop orchestra because more than two female artists were participating in the orchestra and the programme had to be stopped. Mr. Tulpule submitted that there is no such restriction that only two female artists can participate in the orchestra. Learned A.P.P. on instructions from PI Sardar submits that these allegations are without any basis. He says that PI Sardar never AJN 3 visited the petitioner's restaurant on that day. 4. Our attention is drawn to Order dated 20/2/2009 passed by the Division Bench of this Court (Swatanter Kumar, C.J. & Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) in Writ Petition No.331 of 2009 where in somewhat similar fact-situation the Division Bench recorded the statement made by learned A.P.P. and disposed of the petition in view of the said statement. The said order reads as follows : “The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that a policy decision has been taken by the State administration not to take any action if the restaurants are kept open till 1.30 a.m. with orchestra played by male or female singers. However, if the other activities which are impermissible in law are being carried out, the authorities concerned/police can take action in accordance with law.” 5. Learned A.P.P. states that he is making the same statement. In our opinion, therefore, the present Writ Petition also can be disposed of in terms of the above order. Hence, we pass the following order. AJN 4 6. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the respondent-State submits that a policy decision has been taken by the State administration not to take any action if the restaurants are kept open till 1.30 a.m. with orchestra played by male or female singers as per their policy decision. However, if the other activities which are impermissible in law are being carried out, the authorities concerned / police can take action in accordance with law. 7. In view of the above statement, nothing survives in the petition and the petition is disposed of. 8. Needless to say that since in respect of earlier violation, a charge-sheet has already been filed, that case shall proceed in accordance with law. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [R.G. KETKAR, J.]