:1: 10209.11.wp ata IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10209 OF 2011 Sadhu T. Shetty .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors .. Respondent Mr. J. S. Hegde,for the Petitioner. Ms. P. S. Cardozo,AGP, for the Respondent-State CORAM :- G. S. GODBOLE, J. DATE :- DECEMBER 5, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. Hegde, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner at length and Ms. Cardozo, learned AGP for the Respondent. 2 Mr. Hegde, submitted that though the Petitioner was not personally present in the establishment, the person named Mr. Arun S. Shetty who had been appointed as Manager by him was present. What is sought to be produced is form of Nokarnama in favour of Arun Shetty which is required to be authenticated by the authorities under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and Rules framed thereunder. There is nothing to indicate that this Nokarnama was in accordance with the Rule 8(1)and 8(2) of the Rules for Keeping the Place of Public Entertainment framed under Section 33 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. Even in the reply, it is not the case of the Petitioner that Mr. Arun was present but his presence was not shown nor is it the case of the Petitioner that Shri. :2: 10209.11.wp Ramesh Seena Devadiga was not present in the establishment or was not the person conducting the business at the time of inspection. Thus, violation of Rule 8(1) and 8(2) of the 1953 Rules has been established. Such violation is sufficient to sustain the punishment of suspension of license for seven days. Hence, no case is made out for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Rejected. (G. S. GODBOLE,J.)