Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.JAGANADHA RAO
Divanchee Bar and Restaurant, Hyderabad - Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 10-03-85
HYDERABAD AMUSEMENT RULES - APPOINTMENT OF ADVOCATE-COMMISSIONER - RULES 112 (A), (B), (F) - ULTRA VIRES - WRIT PETITION - POLICE INTERFERENCE - CONDITIONS OF LICENCE - POLICE POWERS - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - COMMON LAW - STATUTORY PROVISIONS - REASONABLE BELIEF - BONA FIDE ACTION - PROTECTION TO OFFICERS - ACQUITTAL - CONVICTION - PENDING CASES - CONTINUOUS VIGILANCE - ADVOCATE-COMMISSIONER - O. 26, R. 1, C. P. C. - S. 151, C. P. C. - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - PUBLIC OFFICIALS - DISCHARGE OF DUTIES - JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Bar and Restaurant owner, sought the appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to act as an observer and report on whether the petitioner was complying with the Hyderabad Amusement Rules and if the police were unnecessarily booking cases against them. The petitioner claimed that the police were harassing them and their artists, and that they were not violating any conditions of their license. The respondents, the Commissioner of Police and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, contended that they were acting within their powers and duties to prevent crime and maintain law and order, and that the petitioner had a history of violating the conditions of their license and committing offenses.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner. The court found that the police had the authority to enter the petitioner's premises to check for violations of the license or the commission of crimes, and that the petitioner's history of offenses and violations supported the police's actions. The court also held that the appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner as a continuous check on the police would be an undesirable precedent and would undermine the police's ability to perform their duties.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to act as an observer and report on their compliance with the Hyderabad Amusement Rules and the police's actions. 2. Whether the police were acting within their powers and duties in entering the petitioner's premises and taking action against them. 3. Whether the petitioner's history of offenses and violations was relevant in determining the reasonableness of the police's actions.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner because: a) The police had the authority to enter the petitioner's premises to check for violations of the license or the commission of crimes. b) The petitioner's history of offenses and violations supported the police's actions. c) The appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner as a continuous check on the police would be an undesirable precedent and would undermine the police's ability to perform their duties. 2. The court held that the police were acting within their powers and duties in entering the petitioner's premises and taking action against them because: a) The police have a duty to prevent crime and maintain law and order. b) The petitioner had a history of violating the conditions of their license and committing offenses. c) The police were acting in accordance with various statutes and the common law.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's application for the appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner.
( 1 ) THIS is an application filed by the 4th writ petitioner for the appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to act as an observer and report whether the petitioner is observing the Hyderabad Amusement Rules and, if so, whether the police are unnecessarily booking cases against the petitioner.
( 2 ) THE main writ petition is filed by five Bars and Restaurants and three Artists for the issue of directions to the Commissioner of Police (1st respondent) not to insist on quarterly licences under the Hyderabad Amusement Rules and for a declaration that the licences already issued to petitioners 1 to 5 will be valid till the 30th of Aban of the year. The petitioners also asked for a declaration that they are entitled to provide performances of all dances including Cabaret dances and for a direction to the Commissioner of Police not to interfere with or obstruct the dances shown in the petitioners Restaurants, including Cabaret dances and for a direction to the Commissioner of Police and his subordinates not to forcibly enter into the Bars and Restaurants of the petitioners unless there is a complaint of a cognizable offence and for a declaration that Rules 112 (a), (b), (f), Hyderabad Public Amusement Rules are ultra vires of the Hyderabad City Police Act. These are the reliefs claimed in the main writ petition.
( 3 ) THE writ petition was admitted on 25-7-1983. In an earlier writ petition filed by the 4th writ petitioner viz, W. P. No. 393/83 there was an interim order in W. P. M. P. No. 1269/83 dated 22-3-1983. On the plea that the said interim order was violated by the police authorities, the 4th writ petitioner filed Contempt Case No. 74/83 and a Miscellaneous Contempt Application No. 82/83 against the then Commissioner of Police and the then Deputy Commissioner of Police (West Zone ). The relief claimed in the miscellaneous contempt Application No. 82/83 was for grant of stay of a telephone message dated 2-7-83 said to have been issued by the above said police officers allegedly prohibiting the conduct of Indian dances in the restaurant of the 4th writ petitioner. Jeevan Reddy, J. passed an order on 8-7-83 directing the then Commissioner of Police and the then Deputy Commissioner of Police (West Zone), Hyderabad: "not to interfere with the performance of Indian Dances in the petitioner s premises (and act) strictly in accordance with the licence which was granted, " to the petitioner pending further orders in the petition.
( 4 ) COMING to the present application filed by the 4th writ petitioner for the appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner, it is stated in the affidavit of Sri Dayakar Reddy that the police force has been unnecessarily raiding the 4th petitioner s Bar and Restaurant frequently with an intention to harass the petitioner and the artists employed by it; the respondents have booked number of cases under the Hyderabad City Amusement Rules as well as under the Penal Code against the deponent (K. Dayakar Reddy) and against the artists employed by him. It is stated that there are 24 cases filed against the petitioner Bar and that all ended in acquittal. It is further alleged that there is not even a single instance to show that the petitioner has contravened any provision of the Hyderabad City Amusement Rules or the Penal Code and that the petitioner has been conducting business strictly in accordance with the conditions of the licence. Even so, it is alleged that the respondents are not permitting the petitioner s artists to perform Indian dances as per the licence issued and that the respondents are questioning the customers about their whereabouts which is not contemplated under the rules. It was also stated that the petitioner has filed earlier applications that the respondents should follow the procedure laid down by the Criminal Procedure Code whenever they enter into the Restaurants. The petitioner has also contended that the police officers are illegally detaining the petitioners artists
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
