1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.473 OF 2008 Tirupati Mallesh Gadarla & Anr. ..Petitioners. V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.P.C.Kansara i/b. Kansara & Thanekar for petitioners. Mr.Shekhar Ingawale, AGP for respondents. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : MARCH 27, 2008. DATE : MARCH 27, 2008. DATE : MARCH 27, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. Perused the relevant pleadings and documents on record. 2. Insofar as the finding of fact reached by the two Authorities below that the Petitioners had committed breach of license condition No.7A,8(1) and 8(2) is concerned, there is no reason to depart from the said opinion. The Authority has recorded that find of fact on the basis of materials on record. Although the Petitioners filed their reply to the show cause notice, did not categorically deny the allegations contained in the show cause notice in the context of charge in relation to breach of condition Nos. 8(1) and 8(2) of the terms of license. Indeed, 2 the Petitioners generally denied the charge. However, the Authority proceeded against the Petitioners relying on atleast two specific instances, which occurred on 6th August, 2005 and 14th August, 2005 respectively. On both these occasions, when the police had raided the restaurant, the restaurant was not only found open beyond the permissible hours but it was also noticed that Mr.Kumar Shetty and Mr. Rajesh Shetty were conducting business and the Petitioners were not present in the restaurant. In other words, the Petitioners have not challenged the fact that the said two unauthorised persons were conducting the business. No prior permission was obtained by the Petitioners to permit the said persons to conduct such business. In fact, the criminal cases instituted against the Petitioners for the said breach have ended in conviction by imposing fine in both the cases. That presupposes that the Petitioners have committed breach of not only Condition No.7(A) but also of 8(1) and 8(2) of the terms of license. Thus understood, no interference is warranted with the finding on fact so reached by the two authorities below. 3. The only other argument that is canvassed 3 before me on behalf of the Petitioners, is that, the Authorities have clearly glossed over the fact that only two instances have been reported against the Petitioners, which being nominal breach, by itself, could not be the basis for cancellation of license. The argument though attractive, does not commend to me. The Authorities below have taken into account the fact that even in the past, the Petitioners were warned and in fact their license was suspended for similar breaches in the year 2003. Inspite of that action, the Petitioners continued with the breaches even thereafter unabated. That being the cause for cancellation of license, no fault can be found with the view taken by the two Authorities below in that behalf. Accordingly, the argument of the Petitioners that cancellation of license is an excessive punishment in the fact situation of the present case, is untenable. 4. Hence this Petition is dismissed. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)