P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Kansara, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Ms. Cardozo, learned AGP for the Respondent.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. Heard by consent of the parties. Ms. Cardozo, waives service of rule on behalf of the Respondent.

4. By this Writ Petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 16.03.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (HQ1) from the office of the Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 27 of the “Rules for Keeping Places of Public Entertainments in Greater Bombay” Rules. By the said order, the License No. 43/Colaba granted to the Petitioner to keep a place for public entertainment has been suspended for a period of 30 continuous days. The Petitioner is also challenging the judgment and order dated 18th August, 2011 passed by the Hon’ble Minister(Home Affairs) Government of Maharashtra in the Appeal filed by the Petitioner, whereby the Appeal has been dismissed and the order of suspension has been upheld.

5. Mr.Kansara, submitted that the impugned action is completely without jurisdiction. According to Mr. Kansara, the power to cancel license is conferred only by Section 162 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951(hereinafter referred to as “1951 Act). According to Mr. Kansara, the license can be suspended by the competent authority only if any of it’s conditions or restriction is infringed or violated by the person to whom it has been granted or such person is convicted of such offense with respect to any matter to which such license or permission relates. The actual license which has been granted in this case has not been produced. However, Mr. Kansara, has made statement at bar, which is not disputed, that the licensee is one for keeping a place of public entertainment. The proforma of the license filed in another Petition namely Writ Petition No. 7430 of 2011, has been relied upon and it is stated that the license given to the Petitioner is also similar. According to Mr. Kansara, no conditions whatsoever have been mentioned in the license and hence, there is no question of breach of any conditions. According to Mr. Kansara, since there is no breach of any conditions, the power under Section 162 could not have been invoked. Mr. Kansara, submitted that two things must be fulfilled before the Commissioner exercises powers or jurisdiction under Section 162 namely 1) either that person is not fit to hold the license or 2) in order to prevent any obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger or damage to the residents or passengers( or passers by) in for vicinity or prevent nuisance in such place, the license can be suspended.

6. Mr. Kansara, relied upon several judgments in support of his submissions, and contended that the mere pendency of criminal cases cannot be considered to be a ground for suspension of license. It was further submitted that for breach of Rules Section 131 of the 1951 Act, is applicable and, if, the licensee or other persons are being prosecuted for the alleged offense under the Act, on the basis of the same set of the facts, the licensing authority cannot initiate action for revocation or suspension. It was submitted by Mr. Kansara that for contravention of Rules Section 131 alone applies and, hence, it is only for the Magistrate to decide whether Rules have been contravened or not and even if the Magistrate convicts the person the maximum punishment is of fine of Rs.500/-

7. It is submitted that show cause notice can be therefore issued only if a person is not found to be suitable and since there are no recitals in the show cause notice about such satisfaction of the authority that Petitioner is not suitable to run the business being carried out in the establishment, there is no justification either for issuance of show cause notice or for passing the impugned order of suspension. In so far as the question of violat