Karnataka Live Band Restaurants ... vs State Of Karnataka

2) In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the appeal, it is necessary to set out the facts infra in detail including the background facts, which led to filing of this appeal.

5) The facility of “Live Band Music" and other two items in the restaurants gave a cause to the dispute, which led to filing of the writ petitions in the High Court of Karnataka in the year 1989 and later in appeal to this Court by the appellant-Association and some individual restaurants’ owners against the State. The dispute arose with the following background.

22) The appellant felt aggrieved and filed the writ appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench concurred with the reasoning and conclusion of the Single Judge and, by impugned judgment, dismissed the appeal.

4. Application for Licence: (1) Every person applying for a licence to maintain a place of public entertainment shall make an application in form No.1 along with the documents specified therein and his three recent photographs.

There shall be no inter-mingling of performers with customers/guests on or off the stage. There shall be a distance of at least five feet between the stage and first row of seating area.

9. Notice Board:- (1) Every licensee shall affix or cause to be affixed at some conspicuous place at the place of Public 26 Entertainment a board of suitable size on which shall be written in Kannada and English, the name and address of the licensee and the period of licence.

10. Renewal of Licence:- (1) Every application for renewal of the licence granted under this Order shall be made at least thirty days before the day on which such licence is to expire. The application shall be accompanied by the licence to be renewed and the amount of fee as specified in clause

18. (2) Where an application is made in accordance with sub-clause(1), the earlier licence shall be deemed to be in force till the renewal or refusal of such licence is communicated to the applicant.

13. Power to stop music: Without prejudice to the conditions specified in the licence, the Licensing Authority may, by a general or special order made in this behalf, direct that no music shall be played or allowed to be played during such time as he may direct.

15. Procedure for cancellation of Licence:

(iii) Application form fee Rs.500/-”

51) Having examined the questions in the light of aforementioned general principles of law, we are of the considered opinion that the Order 2005 does not suffer from any legal infirmity and is therefore constitutional. This we say for more than one reason as detailed infra.

54) Sixth, in the light of aforementioned reasonings, Cabaret, Discotheque or Live Band Music are rightly subjected to the rigor of Order 2005. Indeed, the Order 2005 has been issued only with a view to control, regulate and supervise the three performances in the restaurants. Since these performances are displayed in a restaurant where public has an access and, therefore, in the larger public interest, these performances have to be controlled, regulated and supervised by imposing 39 reasonable restrictions in law under clause (6) of Article 19(1).

58) Indeed, if these safety measures are not adhered to by the owners of the restaurants while running their restaurants, the general public would always have a risk of subjecting themselves to the happening of any untoward incident endangering their life and safety.

62) In our considered opinion, the conditions specified in Clauses 7, 8 & 9 directly deal with the public safety, comforts, convenience, morality and law and order and we have not been able to find any kind of unreasonableness or arbitrariness in any of the abovementioned clauses so as to hold that they are unworkable for running the restaurant and to display the three performances.

65) In our opinion, here comes the application of the two maxims quoted supra while determining the rights of an individual qua public and the State.

67) When such incidents occur, they never obliterate from the memories of the citizen and leave a message to all the stakeholders that steps for strict compliance must be taken to avoid any such recurrence in future at any place. We hope that all the stakeholders will keep our observations in mind.

71) This takes us to examine another question as to whether any case of arbitrariness or/and discrimination in issuing Order 2005 as urged by the appellant is made out.

72) We are, however, unable to find any case of arbitrariness or discrimination having been made out by the appellant so as to attract the rigor of Article 14 of the Constitution.

(j) of the Order 2005 are under legal obligation to take licence under Clause 3.

79) Now we uphold the Order 2005, we consider it apposite to direct the respondent-Police Commissioner, Bengaluru to verify and ensure strict compliance of the licence conditions, including all 50 the conditions of the Order 2005 in relation to all the Licensees in whose favour, the licences have been issued so far.

80) The Commissioner will further verify and ensure that those restaurant owners who have not obtained licences so far and yet running their restaurant without holding the licence, such restaurant owners be granted some reasonable time to apply for obtaining the licence after ensuring compliances as provided in the Order 2005, which alone will enable them to run their restaurants in conformity with the requirements of the Order 2005.

81) Failure to obtain the licence after granting a reasonable time to the restaurant owners would result in closure of their restaurants after giving them notice of the closure.

83) Similarly, with a view to avert any untoward incident due to breaking of fire may be for any reasons in the licensed premises, appropriate specific safety measures must be carried out under 52 the guidance of team of experts. These steps are in public interest and it should be given precedence by the Commissioner of Police not only at the time of granting of license but also by doing regular inspection of the licensed premises without any lapse on his part.

84) We hope the Commissioner will take into consideration these observations.

85) In view of foregoing discussion and subject to aforementioned directions, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

January 25, 2018 53