1. I had dismissed this petition and the order dated 23.01.2008 reads thus :-

". For the reasons separately recorded the petition is dismissed. "

2. The reasons for dismissing the Writ Petition are these:

3. The Writ Petition is directed against an order dated 18.12.2007 which has been passed by the Appellate Authority namely Minister of Home, Government of Maharashtra. By the order delivered on 18.12.2007, the Appellate Authority has dismissed the petitioners’ Appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay dated 10.9.2007.

4. The petitioner contends that he is running a Restaurant as a Proprietor. The proprietary business is conducted in the name and style of M/s. Jay Hotels at Ram Mandir Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai-400 062. The case of the petitioner is that he commenced this business in 1993-1994 after obtaining requisite licenses under the Bombay Police Act, Bombay Prohibition Act, so also, other applicable Acts. Insofar as, police licence is concerned, the same was issued on 30.3.1994 permitting the petitioner to serve Food and Liquor in the Restaurant. It is his case that the license is renewed upto 31.3.2005. The petitioner contends that he had applied for renewal of the licence for a further period. It is his case that by virtue of Rule 13(a) of the Entertainment Rules, 1953, the licence is deemed to be renewed.

5. He contends that on 31.3.2007 a Show Cause Notice bearing No.54 of 2007 was issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the police licence cannot be cancelled. A copy of the Show Cause Notice is annexed as Annexure-A. The petitioner replied to the said Show Cause Notice on 9.4.2007 and denied all the allegations made against him.

6. The petitioner was called for a personal hearing on 25.8.2007, but, as he was not in town, he deputed his employee Shamrao Korade to attend the office of Respondent no.3 and requested him to adjourn the matter. Respondent no.3 instead of adjourning the matter questioned the said employee. The employee being unable to answer the questions, the matter was treated as closed after the hearing was concluded.

7. On 13.9.2007, the petitioner received a copy of the order dated 10.9.2007 under which his licence was cancelled. The petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this order filed an Appeal under Section 33 of the Bombay Police Act, before the State Government.

8. Initially, neither the said Application nor the Appeal was being heard and therefore the petitioner moved this court and sought a direction to the Authorities to dispose off the pending proceedings. The pending proceedings were directed to be disposed off and that is how the Appellate Authority heard the petitioner.

9. The petitioner was served with an order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 18.12.2007 dismissing his Appeal. Aggrieved by these orders, the present petition has been filed. 10. Mr.Kansara, appearing for the petitioner would urge that both the orders are ex-facie bad in law being vitiated for breach of principles of natural justice. He submits that Respondent no.3 is the authority before whom the Show Cause Notice was being heard. He did not give enough opportunity to the petitioner to make good his case. The petitioner was handicapped, inasmuch as, he was not in town. The employee deputed by the petitioner was not conversant with the facts and law. Therefore, no effective hearing could be held. The request was for adjournment but such reasonable request is also rejected. The Appellate Authority should have quashed and set aside the impugned order cancelling his licence on this ground alone.

11. That apart, the Authorities could have accepted the explanation of the petitioner and closed the proceedings. This is not a case where the petitioner should have been penalised by cancellation of his license. The breach, if any, of the terms and conditions of the license