2011 Supreme(Bom) 557

2011(4) ALLMR 726
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
D.B. BHOSALE & U.D. SALVI, JJ.
Hotel Priya – Appellant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.7962 OF 2010
Decided on: 6th May, 2011

Headnote:Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Sections 33 and 162-Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Amusement (other than Cinemas) and Performance for Public Amusement including Cabaret Performance, Melas and Tamashas Rules, 1960, Rules 108-A, 109, 118, 207 and 209-Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(g)-Premises licence-Imposition of additional conditions-Powers of licensing authority to impose condition-Total 8 artists permitted to remain present on permitted stage-Restriction imposed in interest of public moral -Reasonable and not discriminatory-Conditions imposed necessary in larger interest of general public/women.- Freedom of profession, trade of business is undoubted the right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India. It is however, subject to the limits/restrictions is may be imposed by the State in the interest of the public. In other words, a business run by a private individual involving public interest can be subjected to reasonable restrictions/limitations by the State. In Court’s opinion, the owner of a restaurant has no unrestricted/unlimited right on the number of artists in the Orchestra in his restaurant. As long as the limitations/restrictions are reasonable and/ or they are imposed in the interest of the general public and more particularly women-artists, performing/working till late night, they cannot be said to be unreasonable. The interest of general public would also mean and include interest of public moral or to make working conditions of women better. In the present case, the impugned conditions are reasonable and, in Court’s opinion, they are necessary in the larger interest of the general public/women. If restriction on the number of women workers/artists is not imposed there is a possibility of the restaurant owners indulging in prohibited activities under the guise of premises licence.

       Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Sections 33 and 162-Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Amusement (other than Cinemas) and Performance for Public Amusement including Cabaret Performance, Melas and Tamashas Rules, 1960, Rules 109, 118, 207 and 209-Premises licence-Imposition of additional conditions-Powers of licensing authority-Condition imposed having regard to restricted size of ’stage’-Total eight artists to remain present on permitted ’stage’-Condition imposed reasonable and practicable-Licensing authority, under Section 162 of Act empowered to impose such condition.-From bare perusal of the continuation sheet of the Premises License attached to the impugned letter dated 12.9.2009 it is clear that the impugned conditions have been imposed by the Commissioner of Police in exercise of the powers conferred on by Section 33 and Section 162(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (Bom XII of 1950) and under Rules, 108-A, 109, 118, 207 and 209 of the Rules. Insofar as the power to impose conditions is concerned, Mr. Soni did not challenge the same, however, he submitted that the first two conditions imposed by the Commissioner are unreasonable and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, Mr. Soni submitted that for imposing the first two conditions there is absolutely no basis either in the rules and/or any situate. Court would like to examine the first contention of Mr. Soni that whether the Commissioner was right in imposing the first two conditions/restriction on the number of artists on the permitted stage. The additional condition Nos. 1 and 2 clearly shows that there cannot be more than eight artists to remain present on the permitted stage. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 it is stated that they had discussion with the association of restaurant owners who run Orchestra and as a outcome thereof restrictions on the size of stage, being 10 ft. by 12 ft., has been imposed. Insofar as the restriction on the size of the stage is concerned the petitioners do not have any grievance and that they have not challenged the same in these petitions. Their challenge is to the restriction on the number of artists. The State, in their reply have stated that the stage admeasuring 10 ft. by 12 ft. cannot accommodate more than eight artists at a time and in view thereof the restriction, after deliberation with the Association, on the number of artists has been imposed by the Commissioner of Police. The contention urged on behalf of the petitioners that the Licensing Authority has not power to impose such conditions, in Court’s opinion, deserves to be rejected outright. The restriction on the total number of artists, having regard to size of the stage, in Court’s opinion, is not only reasonable but it is also practicable. There are several provisions and more particularly Section 162 of the Bombay Police Act which give power to the Licensing Authority to impose such condition.