1. Rule. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. This petition is directed against the orders dated 12 September 2014 made by the Commissioner of Police (Hotel Branch) and State order dated 18 December 2014 confirming the same in appeal, both of which have effect of denying the petitioner, 'Public Entertainment Licence' under Bombay Police Act, 1951 (said Act).

3. The petitioner is a sole proprietor of the restaurant functioning under the name and style of 'M/s. Senorita Bar and Restaurant', which has been issued licences by several authorities, inter alia, for carrying on the business as a Restaurant / Eating House. The Commissioner of Police (respondent No.1) has itself granted Eating House Restaurant Certificate No.5/11, some time in the month of May 2011, which has been renewed from time to time. Similarly, the petitioner has been granted FL-III Licence by the Collector, Mumbai city, in terms of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 framed under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. In respect of FL-III Licence which was granted on 20th February 2014 and which has since been renewed, the petitioner has paid the licence fees of Rs.3,63,000/-. Although the FL-III Licence authorizes the petitioner to sell and serve foreign liquors, before the petitioner can actually sell or serve foreign liquors, the petitioner is required to obtain Public Entertainment Licence under the said Act. This is because Section 2(10) of the said Act defines a place of public entertainment as an Eating House, where the liquor is served. Rule 3 of the Public Entertainment Rules framed under the said Act further provides that a Public Entertainment Licence can be granted only after a licence for the sale of liquor is issued under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. In this case, as noted earlier, the petitioner has already obtained FL-III Licence under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. 4] The petitioner's application for Public Entertainment Licence was however rejected by the Commissioner of Police (Hotel Branch) vide order dated 12 September 2014 on the ground that the petitioner does not have its own parking lot, sufficient for parking of at least five vehicles. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had preferred Writ Petition No.10188 of 2014, which was disposed of by an order dated 20 November 2014 directing expeditious disposal of the petitioner's appeal against the order dated 12 September 2014.

5. In pursuance to the order dated 20 November 2014, respondent No.2 acting through Principal Secretary, Home Department has made the order dated 18 December 2014, dismissing the petitioner's appeal. As noted earlier, this petition is directed against the orders dated 12 September 2014 and 18 December 2014, which shall be referred to as the impugned orders.

6. Ms Thadhani learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance upon several decisions of this Court submitted that once FL-III Licence has been issued under the provisions of Bombay Foreign Liquor Rule 1953, there arises no question of rejecting Public Entertainment Licence under the provisions of the said Act. This is because the provisions of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 made thereunder contemplate a stricter scrutiny with regard to both the location of the premises and suitability of the licencee. Ms Thadhani also submitted that in the present case, the petitioner is to provide for valet parking, for which purpose the petitioner has already acquired parking place vide agreement dated 1 February 2014. This was placed on record before the respondents. In any case, Ms Thadhani again relying upon certain decisions of this Court submitted that non-availability of parking place cannot be a ground for rejection of the Public Entertainment Licence, particularly since the authorities have already issued licence to operate an Eating House from the very same premises. Ms Thadhani ultimately submitted that there are sev