JUDGMENT - Dr. B.P. SARAF, J.:---The petitioner runs a restaurant at Bombay which is a "place of entertainment" within the meaning of Clause (10) of section 2 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 ("the Act"). As required by the said Act and the rules made thereunder, the petitioner obtained the requisite licence from the Commissioner of Police to keep a place of public entertainment. As ancillary to his business of running the restaurant the petitioner also plays in his restaurant, orchestra, vocal music and songs. According to the authorities under the Bombay Police Act, the restaurants which play music are also required to obtain another licence for that purpose, as according to them, playing music in a place of public entertainment amounts to maintaining a place of public amusement. The petitioner was aggrieved by this stand of the respondent - police authorities. According to the petitioner, it did not maintain any place of public amusement but was playing orchestra, vocal music etc., in course of its business of maintaining a place of public entertainment for which it had already obtained a licence in accordance with the law. The case of the petitioner is that licence obtained by itself allows playing of such music subject only to the conditions specified in Rule 21(1) of the Rules governing the grant of the said licence. Apprehending coercive action from the respondents for not obtaining a separate licence for place of public amusement, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that it is not required to obtain any performance licence which is required for maintaining a place of public amusement as it is not maintaining any such place. According to the petitioner, playing of orchestra, vocal music or songs without any consideration is ancillary to its business of running a restaurant which cannot convert the said restaurant into a place of public amusement. In other words, the contention of the petitioner is that playing of music simplicitor of any type does not bring the place within the definition of place of public amusement and in that view of the matter, he cannot be asked to obtain another licence on that count.

3. The learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, urged that the activities of the petitioner amounts to "amusement". According to him, though the petitioner carries on the business of running a restaurant, which is a place of public entertainment, when he plays music therein he does so for the amusement of his customers and not for his own pleasure and in that view of the matter, his this activity falls within the meaning of 'amusement' and the place where such amusement is provided, will be a "place of public amusement" within the meaning of section 2(9) of the Act. Great emphasis is laid in this connection on the words "music and singing" which find place in the definition of "place of public amusement" in section 2(9) of the Act. Counsel also places reliance on the "Rules for Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Amusement (other than Cinemas) and Performance for Public Amusement, including Melas and Tamashas, 1960" in support of his contention that playing of music in any form is covered by the expression "performance" and any place where such performance takes place is required to obtain a performance licence.

4. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. I have perused the relevant provisions of the Police Act, 1951 Rules dealing with the issue of licences for maintaining a place of Public Entertainment and 1960 Rules for Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Amusements and Performances for Public Amusement including Melas and Tamashas. Evidently, music played by the petitioner in his restaurant cannot fall in the latter part of the expression, that is "Performances for Public Amusement including Melas and Tamashas". Only point that will remain to be scrutinised is whether it falls within the expression "Pl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document