R.C. CHAVAN, J.

Rule. By consent made returnable forthwith.

2. This petition questions the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur on 3rd December, 2012 and the order of the Principal Secretary, Home passed on 24th February, 2013 whereby those Authorities held that the petitioner's license for running a lodging house in the name of 'Hotel Legend' was liable to be cancelled.

3. Facts, in the context of which the present challenge is raised, are as under:

The petitioner holds a license for running a lodging house issued on 15th January, 2010, which seems to have been renewed subsequently. On 1st September, 2012 one Anurag Shukla check into the hotel at about 8.30 p.m. and he was allotted room no.212. On 2nd September, 2013 about 20 minutes past mid-night, on receipt of information that gambling activity was going on in the petitioner's hotel, the police party conducted a raid, in which police party found 13 persons in room no. 212 gambling with the help of playing cards. Cash of Rs.3,42,350/- seems to have been recovered from them in the raid. Anurag Shukla was not found in the room, which was found to be occupied by 13 other persons. An offence was registered and it appears that the persons who were gambling in the room have been prosecuted by filing an appropriate charge-sheet before the Magistrate's court.

A notice was issued on 29th October, 2012 to Manmohansingh Kohli, possibly the owner of the hotel, to show cause as to why the license issued for running a lodging house should not be cancelled in exercise of powers under Section 162(2) of the Bombay Police Act. This notice was replied on behalf of the owner by the present petitioner on 8th November, 2012. After considering the reply filed by the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nagpur by his impugned order dated 3rd December, 2012 cancelled the lodging house license. The petitioner filed appeal against the said order before the Hon'ble Minister in the Government of Maharashtra. This appeal seems to have been decided by the Principal Secretary, Home Department on behalf of the Minister by her impugned order dated 22nd February, 2013 whereby she dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby; the petitioner is before us.

4. We have heard Shri Subodh Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pathan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State and have gone through the reply filed on behalf of respondent no.2 the Deputy Commissioner of Police.

5. It was first contended by the learned APP that since the question pertains to cancellation of license by quasi judicial order, appropriate remedy was to file civil writ petition before the learned Single Judge of this Court and that the criminal writ petition is not tenable. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has rightly filed a criminal writ petition since what is challenged is a punishment imposed upon the petitioner by cancellation of his license. He relied on the judgment of this Court in Nagpur Cable Operators' Association V/s. Commissioner of Police, Nagpur and another reported at 1995(2) Mh. L.J. 753 where a Division Bench of this Court had considered this aspect of the matter and observed in para 21 of the judgment that "criminal writ petitions would also cover those writ petitions which arise out of the orders and matters relating to prevention or breach of peace or maintenance of peace and order or such orders aimed at preventing vagrancy contemplated to be passed.'' The learned counsel submitted that the license has been issued in exercise of Regulations made under Section 33 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The Section is titled as 'power to make rules for regulation of traffic and for preservation of order in public place, etc. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that since Regulation to issue a license was made for preservation of order in public places and since the impugned orders are passed cancelling such license granted, a criminal w