:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 876 OF 2008 Shri Vithal S. Shetty ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents ====== Ms.Vidya Manjrekar Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.Nitin Deshpande, AGP for respondent/state. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 20TH FEBRUARY,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. Mentioned. Not on board. 2. The petitioner’s license which has been issued under the Rules framed by the Authority empowered under Section 33 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 has been suspended for breach and violation of the terms and conditions thereof. That suspension was challenged in Appeal and even the Appeal has been dismissed. 3. In para-7 of the Appellate order, it has been held :2: :2: :2: that there are two offences which have been registered against the Establishment and the Establishment has been found to be guilty in one and fine has been imposed. That apart, on two prior occassions the license was suspended but the acts are repeated by the Petitioner. 4. In the Licensing Authority’s order as well as in the Appellate’s order, it has been mentioned that the license was sought to be suspended because in 2004-05 two offences were registered against the Establishment, when the Establishment was raided by the police, the petitioner-Vithal Sanjiv Shetty was not available at the place where the Establishment was functioning. Further, the person who has been allegedly working as Manager has not been so appointed or designated after prior permission of the Authorities. Lastly, the petitioner was charged with allowing and facilitating the ladies in carrying on immoral and indecent activities at the Establishment. 5. The petitioner was issued an Show Cause Notice to which reply was given and the same was duly :3: :3: :3: considered. The Licensing Authority suspended the license for 45 days on 28.8.2007 which order has been upheld by the Appellate Authority. 6. In so far as the offence registered is concerned, the plea raised is that the case has already been concluded. As far as, the alleged acts of the lady waitress are concerned, it is urged that they were caught on the road outside the Hotel premises. The lady waitress have already been booked and they have paid a fine of Rs.200/-. Further, it is not as if the petitioner can remain present for 24 hours in the Establishment. 7. I see nothing convincing in these submissions which have also been canvassed before the Licensing and the Appellate Authority. That apart, the petitioner has been proceeded against for violations of identical nature in the past and the license was suspended on two occasions earlier. Further, it is undisputed that the ladies involved in the immoral and indecent acts have owned up the same. The petitioner is also not available at the Establishment and if he has to :4: :4: :4: designate somebody else to look after the day to day affairs, even that has to be with prior approval from the Authority. Nothing has been shown to me which demonstrates compliance with these requirements. For all these reasons, I do not find that the orders under challenge suffer from any error apparent, so as, to warrant interference under the Writ jurisdiction. The conclusions which have been arrived at are consistent with the materials produced and therefore cannot be termed as perverse. The license has been suspended now on the third occasion as the petitioner has not complied with the terms and conditions. For all these reasons, this is not a fit case for interference in Writ jurisdiction. Petition is summarily dismissed. No costs. ********