R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.

1. 1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.

2. 2. The petitioner challenges the orders dated 1-9-2003 and 19-8-2002, passed by the authorities below under the provisions of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, hereinafter called as "the said Act". The first order was passed by the appellate authority while the latter by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. By the impugned orders, the licence issued to the petitioner for having amusement programmes at his hotel premises, namely M/s Hotel Topsy, situated at Rizvi Chambers, Hill Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai, has been suspended for a period of 30 continuous days. During the pendency of the hearing and disposal of this petition, pursuant to the issuance of rule, the execution of the said order was stayed.

3. The challenge to the impugned orders is on four grounds. Firstly, that the orders are contrary to the provisions of law

applicable to the facts of the case and reveal total non-application of mind to the facts and the law applicable thereto by both the authorities. Secondly, that there has been discrimination in the matter of imposition of penalty, inasmuch as that some of the similarly situated licence holders were pardoned for similar instances while the petitioner has been subjected to penalty of suspension of licence for 30 days. Thirdly, the appellate authority while confirming the order of the lower authority has sought to justify the same on the grounds which were neither disclosed to the petitioner at any time nor the respondents had any time relied upon the same for the purpose of action of suspension of the licence of the petitioner. Fourthly, the authorities below erred in ignoring the well-established principles of law that once the renewal of licence was granted irrespective of certain incidents which had occurred during the previous year and which would have perhaps justified refusal of renewal of licence, then subsequently the very instances could not have been made the basis for suspension of licence.

3. 4. The impugned orders are sought to be justified on behalf ofthe respondents by contending that the conviction of the petitioner in one of the cases apparently disclosed that the petitioner was involved in illegal activities and therefore the action of suspension of the licence for 30 days was perfectly justified. It was further contended on behalf of the respondents that it is a mere suspension of the performance licence without in any manner disturbing the business of the petitioner in the hotel premises. As regards renewal of licence, it was contended that the renewal was with the reservation of right to take action even on the ground of violation, if any, of the condition of licence during the previous year.

4. 5. The petitioner is a holder of the licence for running a

restaurant and permit room, including an eating house under the provisions of the said Act. The petitioner was granted premises licence in the year 1995 for having orchestra and Indian classical dance on recorded music in his restaurant and accordingly had been providing the said entertainment to his customers in the said premises. The premises licence was renewed on 18-2-2002 for the period from 1-1-2001 to 31-12-2001. The petitioners restaurant premises were raided by the police authorities on two occasions; firstly on 11-10-2001 and secondly on 20-11-2001, and action was taken in terms of the provisions of the said Act and the petitioner was fined in relation to the incident of 11-10-2001. As regards the second incident, on account of failure on the part of the petitioner to attend the proceedings before the Magistrate, the bail bond furnished by the petitioner was forfeited. By the Notice dated 31-5-2002, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why his premises licence should not be suspended for 60 days on the ground that the same was found open beyond the prescribed time limit on two occasions and cases had been registered by th