JUDGMENT :- Heard Counsel for the parties. Perused the relevant documents on record as well as the Orders passed by the two authorities below.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. Ms. Gaidhani waives notice for Respondents.

3. In so far as first contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner that the action initiated by the authority was founded on the stale instances is concerned, that does not commend to me. Indeed, show cause notice refers to 10 cases registered in relation to (he Restaurant operated by the Petitioner, which pertains to period between February, 2003 to August, 2005. However, that is one of the ground on which, action of cancellation of license was proposed.

4. The Authorities have also found that the Petitioner had violated license condition, which was breach of Rule 8(1) of the Rules 1953. The Authorities have concurrently found that the Petitioner permitted third person to conduct the business in her absence. That fact is candidly accepted by the Petitioner not only in the written reply filed to the showcause notice, but also by the husband of the Petitioner, who had appeared on behalf of the Petitioner before the First Authority. as is noted in concluding paragraph-l at page 3.

5. To get over this position. Counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the Petitioner had made grievance at least before the Appellate Authority that no action can be taken against the Petitioner for violation of Rule 8(1) because the Petitioner has already applied to the Authority for grant of permission to appoint Manager, which Application is pending since 22nd December. 2003 before the competent Authority. So long as no order was passed on the said Application, the Petitioner cannot be proceeded for violation of condition of license by invoking Rule 8(1) of the Rules. Indeed, the Petitioner has taken such ground in the Memo of Appeal filed before the Appellate Authority. However, what has been overlooked is that in the written reply filed before the First Authority in paragraph-2 thereof, the Petitioner has admitted the fact that no application for appointment of manager has been filed by her till filing of the said written reply on 18th July, 2006. The Petitioner has then assured that she would be soon appointing manager, however, would take prior permission of the concerned authority in that behalf. Nowhere in this written reply, it is even remotely suggested that there was already pending application of the Petitioner. Significantly, the husband of the Petitioner, who appeared before the First Authority, has candidly accepted the fact that he himself was not in a position to attend the restaurant business due to his in health, whereas the Petitioner who is the license holder is not able to attend the business during odd hours being a woman. Thus understood, it is amply clear that the Petitioner concedes the position that the Petitioner herself is not continually managing the affairs of the restaurant, but is dependant on some other person. Significantly, no permission has been granted to the Petitioner to avail of assistance of any third person, albeit as Manager of the Restaurant. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the view taken by the two Authorities below that this was a clear case of breach of rule 8(1) of the Rule.

6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner then contends that the Authorities have proceeded against the Petitioner on the basis of cases, which have ended on account of accused pleading guilty in the respective cases. According to the Petitioner, by virtue of Section 33(w) and Section 110 read with Section ISlA of the Bombay Police Act, those cases could not be reckoned for the purpose of action of terminating license or for that matter suspending the same. There is no substance in this submission. For, Subsection (2) of Section ISlA of the Act stipulates that where an accused person pleads guilty and remits the sum specified, no further proceedings in respec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document