1 wp3682-11.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3682 OF 2011 Mohanlal S. Chavan .. Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents Mr.N.K.Desai for the petitioner. Ms.P.S.Cardozo, A.G.P for respondent Nos.1 to 5. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 25th July 2011. P.C.: . The petition was proceeded against for breach and violation of the terms and conditions of the grant of a public performance licence. 2 The licence was suspended for five days in 2007 and for ten days in 2009. 3 Once again, it was found that the petitioner has not complied with Rule 8(1) and Rule 8(2) of the subject Rules. Therefore, without taking into account the criminal cases and the activities in relation thereto, the licensing authority has imposed a punishment of suspension of subject licence for a 2 wp3682-11.doc period of twenty-one days. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal was filed, which appeal has also been dismissed by the impugned order dated 30th March 2011. 4 Upon a query of the Court, the petitioner’s advocate fairly stated that the petitioner is a senior citizen and he has taken steps to nominate a person and include his name. This person’s name should be included as a manager and the request is made in that behalf in writing vide application dated 18th April 2011. 5 From this statement it is itself clear that when the show cause notice was issued and the order dated 20th May 2010 was passed, no application was made to appoint manager and include his name. Further, even before the appellate authority, no such request was made. 6 It is only during the course of challenge to the order passed by the appellate authority dated 30th March 2011 that such a statement is made and request is made to take lenient view of the matter. 7 After having perused the impugned orders with the assistance of the petitioner’s advocate, so also, the allegations in the show cause notice, I am 3 wp3682-11.doc of the view that interest of justice would be served if the petition is disposed off with a direction to modify the ultimate punishment imposed on the petitioner’s establishment. Accordingly, the period of suspension is reduced from twenty-one days to eight days. The petitioner’s establishment shall be closed from 1st August 2011 for a period of eight days and only thereafter the petitioner’s application dated 18th April 2011 will be considered by the authorities. If the establishment is not closed as directed, then, in addition to proceeding against the petitioner for breach and violation of this Court’s direction, the application made by the petitioner dated 18th April 2011 shall not be considered and thereafter, the authorities can take steps to close down the petitioner’s establishment. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)