1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 2057 OF 2009 Hiradevi Ghanshyamdas Dubey ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 1492 OF 2009 Puranchand Kaluram Rajput ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 1496 OF 2009 Hotel Triveni ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 1497 OF 2009 Padma Lunch Home ...Petitioner Versus 2 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 1498 OF 2009 Hotel Sangam & Permit Room ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 1499 OF 2009 Royal Hotel & Beer Bar ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 1500 OF 2009 Utsav Bar and Restaurant ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 1509 OF 2009 Faizabadi Restaurant and Bar ...Petitioner 3 Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 1511 OF 2009 Hotel Priya ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 1558 OF 2009 Sheetal Restaurant and Bar ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 1631 OF 2009 Mausam Restaurant & Bar ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents WITH CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 1655 OF 2009 Hotel Sachin Bar and Restaurant ...Petitioner 4 Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Pravin G. Sawant for the Petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2057 of 2009 Mr. R.D. Soni i/by M/s. Ram & Co. for the Petitioners in all other matters Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE: AUGUST 20, 2009 P.C.:- The main grievance in all these petitions was that the petitioners’ restaurants/bars are not being allowed to be kept open up to 1.30 a.m., as decided by the Government. 2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits, on instructions, that there has been already a policy decision that these restaurants/bars would remain open up to 1.30 a.m., and 5 there has been no change in such a decision. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners is misplaced. 3. The second grievance is that the restaurants / bars are not being allowed to engage more than two women in their orchestra. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that since the space for use for such orchestra is restricted, therefore, it would not be possible to have, within orchestra, more than two women. It is difficult for this Court to come to a conclusion as to what space would be needed for an orchestra having two or more than two women. The learned counsel for the petitioners accept that even if two women are employed in the orchestra, they perform in batches. In any case, we have not found any rule allowing the respondents to place restrictions on engaging of more than two women for the orchestra. Therefore, such an action by the respondents is clearly without jurisdiction. This Court has already passed an order on 29th December, 2006 in Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 31262 of 2006, Chandrakant M. Shetty v. The State of 6 Maharashtra & Ors. and other connected matters, allowing the restaurants / bars to be kept open till 1.30 a.m. 4. We allow these petitions, and hold that the petitioners be allowed to run their restaurants / bars up to 1.30 a.m., and they shall also be allowed to engage any persons, irrespective of sex, in the orchestra in any number they want. However, if the respondents want to restrict the number for any reason whatsoever, they are at liberty to take any action in that regard in accordance with law, like framing of rules. 5. The Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of. BILAL NAZKI, J. A.R. JOSHI, J.