JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are impugning the show cause notice dated 15-11-95, the order passed by respondent No. 2 on 2-4-96 and the order in appeal passed on 17-6-96 by respondent No. 3. In substance the grievance of the petitioners is suspension of their licence to keep a place of public entertainment for 15 days.

2.The petitioners are partners in the registered partnership firm of M/s. Golden Crown which is engaged in restaurant business at 29/33, Jankar Village Estate, August Kranti Marg, Mumbai. The petitioners were granted licence being Police Licence No. 36/1986 on 25-6-1986 by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Tardeo Division, to keep a place of public entertainment. The said licence which was initially granted upto 31-3-87 continued to be renewed every year from time to time. The last renewal was made upto 31-3-97. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioners by the Dy. Commissioner of Police Head Quarters, Greater Bombay on 15-11-95 seeking explanation from the petitioners as to why their licence should not be suspended for a period of 15 days for repeatedly committing breaches of law and creating law and order problem. The petitioners responded to the said show cause notice by filing reply and ultimately the respondent No. 2 passed an order on 2-4-96 suspending the petitioners licence to keep a place of public entertainment for 15 days. The said order passed by the respondent No. 2 on 2-4-96 came to be challenged in appeal by the petitioners before respondent No. 3 on various grounds. However, the appellate authority was not persuaded by the contentions of the petitioners and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners vide order dated 17-6-96. Aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No. 2 suspending petitioners licence for 15 days and confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority, the present writ petition has been filed.

3.In the present case in the show cause notice given to the petitioners the following incidents, offences, breaches and omissions have been mentioned while proposing the suspension of petitioners licences.

No.L C No.U/SectionDate TimeAccusedRemarks

1.1272/92 33-1(W)17-4-92Shivram H. Accused

00.40 hrs.Shetty absent.

2.1552/92"20-05-92Bhaskar Bail

03-00 hrs.Shetty Deposit

forfeited.

3.2468/9333-1(W)5-10-93Ramesh Bail

02.45 hrs.Hegde Deposit

forfeited.

4.2676/93"19-10-93Ramesh"

01.45 hrs.Hegde

5.2953/93"18-11-93""

6. /94 33-1(W)4-3-94Ashok K. Accused

02.45 hrs.Shetty absent.

Bail

Deposit

forfeited.

7.739/94"7-5-95"

02.35 hrs.Ramesh Hegde"

8.874/94"5-6-94/03.15 hrs.Ramesh"

Hegde

9.895/94"10-6-94/01.30 hrs. ""

10.1319/94"27-9-94/00.4 hrs.Shivram G."

Shetty.

11.1396/94"9-10-94/03.30 hrs. Ramesh"

Hegde

12.1411/94"12-10-94/01.35 hrs. ""

13.1647/94"17-12-94/02.30 hrs. Navin"

Chotha

14.1686/94"30-12-94/02.00 hrs. Ashok K."

Shetty

15.89/95"27-1-95/01-35 hrs. Ramesh D."

Hegde

16.151/95"5-2-95/01.15 hrs.Navin R."

Chotha

17.310/95"28-2-95/01.30 hrs. Ramesh D."

Hegde

18.400/95"17-3-95/02.10 hrs. ""

19.450/95"24-3-95/02.00 hrs. Navin R."

Chotha."

4.Admittedly the original licence granted to petitioners to keep the place of public entertainment has been renewed every year after the first incident as cited in the show cause notice dated 17-4-92 and the last incident dated 24-3-95 at Item No. 19 mentioned in the said notice had taken place. Obviously when the aforesaid offences or incidents or breaches were not found sufficient by the concerned authority for denial of renewal of licence to the petitioners, the said offences, incidents or breaches cannot furnish grounds for cancellation or suspension of licence which was renewed after the said offences, incidents or breaches had already taken place. Rule 13-A of the Rules for Keeping Places of Public Entertainment in Greater Bombay framed by Commissioner of Police under section 33 of the Bombay Police Act provides for renewal of licence granted under thes

Click Here to Read the rest of this document