The central legal point established is that pendency of criminal proceedings and convictions cannot be sole grounds for cancellation of a license, and the cancellation must be based on relevant infringements or convictions as per the applicable law.

JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---Rule.

2. By consent rule returnable forthwith.

3. This writ petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the State Minister (Home), Government of Maharashtra dated 15-5-1999.

4. Briefly stated, the petitioner was running a hotel in the name and style of M/s. Satyam Lodging and Boarding at Satyam Industrial Estate No. 2, Pokharan No. 1, Thane for which he had obtained Eating Registration Certificate No. 42 of 1981 and Lodging Licence No. 77 of 1981. It is stated that on 5-3-1997 the local police forcibly entered the hotel rooms occupied by decent persons and booked 2 cases against them. According to the petitioner some of the persons were so humiliated that they did not contest the cases booked against them under sections 110 and 117 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and preferred to pay fine. It is further stated that certain cases filed against the employees/staff of the petitioner hotel under provisions of the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956, are still pending.

5. Nevertheless, the Commissioner of Police, Thane by a show cause notice dated 2-5-1995 called upon the petitioner to explain as to why the licence granted for hotel and eating house should not be cancelled for the reasons mentioned therein. The only reason indicated in the said show cause notice was that employees of the hotel were booked by Vartak Nagar Police under the provisions of sections 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act. The other grounds mentioned was that the cases booked under section 110 and 117 of the Bombay Police Act against the occupants of the rooms in the hotel arrested on 5-3-1997 have ended in conviction. Reply was sent to the said show cause notice by the petitioner.

6. The Commissioner of Police, Thane by order dated 1-7-1997 did not accept the explanation given by the petitioner and instead ordered cancellation of the eating house registration certificate and the lodging licence granted to the petitioner in respect of M/s. Hotel Satyam Lodging and Boarding.

7. This decision was challenged by the petitioner before the State Government by way of statutory appeal. The Minister, by order dated 27-5-1998, dismissed the appeal.

8. Against the said decision, the petitioner had filed writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 2801 of 1998. This Court, by order dated 25-6-1998, was pleased to set aside the order passed by the State Minister for Home dated 27-5-1998 and directed the Minister to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with the law after giving an opportunity to the petitioner.

9. Accordingly, the matter once again went back before the Minister, who in turn, by order dated 15-5-1999, once again reiterated the reasons which were subject matter of challenge in the previous writ petition filed by the petitioner. It was specifically urged before the Minister that pendency of any proceedings cannot be a ground for cancellation of licence, which view has been consistently taken by this Court, yet the Minister chose to negative the stand taken by the petitioner for no valid reason. Even with regard to the second point urged on behalf of the petitioner that conviction of the occupants arrested from the hotel rooms under sections 110 and 117 of the Bombay Police Act cannot be a ground for cancellation of Hotel and Lodging Licence, the Minister rejected the said contention without noticing the decision of this Court (Mr. A.G. Narvel v. Shri B.T. Nhinglavha and others)1, reported in 1999 Vol. 101(1) Bom.L.R. 196.

10. Although respondents have filed affidavit before this Court in response in the present writ petition against the aforesaid decision, however, the said affidavit does not deal with the issue which has been specifically raised. The petitioner rightly points out that the issue is conclusively decided by this Court in previous decision, which form part of this writ petition compilation.

11. With regard to the fi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document