1. Rule. Rule is made returnable with the consent of all the parties, forthwith.

2. This is the third petition filed by the Petitioner seeking licence under the provisions of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 to commence Video Game Parlour at Shop No.13, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai.

3. On 20th October 2009, the Petitioner applied to the Commissioner of Police – Respondent No.1 for licence to commence Video Game Parlour. Prescribed/requisite documents were enclosed alongwith the application. For over six months, there was no consideration of the Petitioner's application and therefore the Petitioner preferred Writ Petition No.3448 of 2010 seeking a writ of mandamus to direct Respondent No.1 to consider the Petitioner's application for licence. The petition was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court by a judgment and order dated 30th April 2010 with directions to Respondent No.1 to dispose of the application expeditiously and in any case within six weeks in accordance with law.

4. By an order dated 29th June 2010, Respondent No.1 declined licence to the Petitioner on the ground that there is no independent parking space in front of the shop where the Video Game Parlour was proposed to be set up and if licence is granted, probability of law and order situation developing in the locality cannot be ruled out.

5. The Petitioner appealed against the order dated 29th June 2010 to the Minister (Home), State of Maharashtra, which appeal was dismissed and the appeal dismissal order communicated on 6 February 2012.

6. The Petitioner thereupon preferred Writ Petition No.3962 of 2012 before this Court, which was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 4th September 2012. The relevant extracts from the said judgment are reproduced for the sake of reference:

“1. …................................

2. ….................................

3. My attention is invited to the No Objection Certificate from the local Police Station, but what has been stated on affidavit by the State is that the Traffic Police have given a report wherein it is stated that 12 feet road from the Petitioner's establishment towards Sanpada highway is declared as no parking and there is no parking place for the Video Game Parlour.

4. On taking instructions, Ms. Thadhani, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, states that the Petitioner will give an undertaking to the authorities that if the Video Game Parlour business is allowed to be commenced and carried out, the Petitioner will make appropriate parking arrangement of vehicles of those who are visiting the Video Game Parlour and which arrangement shall be made in private property. Further, the Petitioner will ensure that the visitors to the Video Game Parlour park their vehicles in the allocated spaces of parking and areas, such as pay and park scheme and shall not cause any obstruction to the smooth flow of vehicles on public road and particularly 12 feet road towards Sanpada highway. She also submits that no parking of vehicles will be permitted by the Petitioner in the spaces and areas which are specified as no parking.

5. In these circumstances if the Petitioner furnishes such an undertaking to the authorities and ensures its compliance, then, I see no reason as to why the Petitioner should be denied the licence.

6. If the aforesaid objection is the only one, based on which, the authorities have denied the licence, then, with the aforementioned arrangements there should not be any impediment in quashing and setting aside the orders under challenge. They are, accordingly, quashed and set aside. It is directed that the Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai shall consider the Petitioner's application afresh and since the Petitioner is ready and willing to furnish the above undertaking, the Licensing Authority should take a decision as expeditiously as possible and within a period of two weeks from the date an undertaking is furnished by the Petitioner.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner states t