Back
2016 Supreme(SC) 1101
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.
Indian Hotel & Restaurant Association & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 793 of 2014; SLP(C) Nos. 13764, 15953 of 2012; 8992 of 2013; Conmt. Pet. (C) Nos. 275 & 248 of 2014 In C.A. No. 2705 of 2006
Decided On : 18-04-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Mr. Prasenjit Keswani, Mr. Satyajit Saha, Mrs V. D. Khanna, Mr. Manoj K. Mishra, Mr. Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Dwivedi, Ms. Meghna Kalra
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Sen, Mr. Sandeep Deshmukh, Mr. Nar Hari Singh, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Mr. Nikhil Nayyar, Ms. Veena K., Mr. Dhananjay Baijal, Mr. N. Sai Vino, Ms. Pinky Anand, Ms. Saudamini S., Mr. Prabal Bagchi, Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure
The court's decision was based on the specific conditions for installation of CCTV cameras and the precedent set in the case of State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Indian Hotel and Restaurants Association Ors., (2013) 8 SCC 519.
Headnote:
Court Order - Impleadment - Court directed the conditions for installation of CCTV cameras at a premises, citing the decision in State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Indian Hotel and Restaurants Association Ors., (2013) 8 SCC 519
Fact of the Case:
The court directed the installation of CCTV cameras at a premises, with specific conditions, and granted a week's time for compliance by the State of Maharashtra.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the impleadment, directed the installation of CCTV cameras with specific conditions, and granted a week's time for compliance by the State of Maharashtra.
Issues: Impleadment, Installation of CCTV cameras, Compliance by the State of Maharashtra
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the conditions imposed by the State and the precedent set in the case of State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Indian Hotel and Restaurants Association Ors., (2013) 8 SCC 519.
Final Decision: The matter was listed for compliance by the State of Maharashtra on 25.04.2016.
ORDER :
I.A. for impleadment is allowed. Let the applicant be added as respondent No.6. Cause title be rectified accordingly.
2. Heard Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General for the State, Mr. Sanjiv Sen, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent no.5 and Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, learned senior counsel for the newly added respondent No.6.
3. This Court, on 02.03.2016, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, noting the conditions imposed by the State and referring to the decision in State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Indian Hotel and Restaurants Association Ors., (2013) 8 SCC 519 had directed as follows :
“Having heard learned counsel for the parties, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel, who sought permission to file an application for intervention and Mr. Sandeep Deshmukh, learned counsel for the 5th respondent, we are inclined to modify the said condition to the extent that CCTV cameras shall be fixed at the entrance of the premises in question but shall not be fixed in the restaurant or the permit area or the performance area.
As we have clarified the conditions, the modified conditions along with conditions on which there is no cavil shall be complied with within three days and the respondents shall issue the licences within ten days therefrom. We are sure, the authorities shall act in accordance with the command of this Court and not venture to deviate.”
4. Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the State of Maharashtra prays for a week's time so that the order can be complied with. It is urged by her that the applications are under process. An affidavit of compliance shall be filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters-I, (Hotel Division) who shall also remain personally present on 25.04.2016.
5. Let the matter be listed on 25.04.2016.
