R.V. More, J.

1. Heard Mrs. Veena Thadhani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. P.S. Cardozo, learned AGP for respondents. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and, by consent, the matter is heard finally.

2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the orders dated 3rd July, 2014 and 1st August, 2012 passed by the 2nd and 1st respondents respectively, whereby applications made by the petitioner for grant of public entertainment license was rejected.

3. The petitioner is the sole proprietor of restaurant in the name and style of M/s. Hotel Reena Restaurant and is carrying on business in shop No. 9/10, Survey No. 461, C.S.T. No. 262, Link Road, Opposite Goregaon Sports Club, Near Swagat Park, Malad West, Mumbai-400064. The petitioner was granted Eating House Registration Certificate by the 1st respondent on 30th December, 2010 for carrying on business of restaurant. The petitioner thereafter applied for FL-III license under the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 (for short "the BFL Rules") framed under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (for short "the BP Act") and, accordingly, FL-III license was granted after verification by State Excise Department on 14th October, 2011. The petitioner thereafter paid the license fees amounting to Rs. 3,63,000/- and this license is being renewed thereafter every year. The petitioner was informed that before commencing the business, he is required to obtained another license viz. Public Entertainment License under the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (for short "the Police Act") from the Commissioner of Police. The petitioner, accordingly, applied to the 1st respondent for public entertainment license under the Police Act read with the Rules of Places of Public Entertainment Licenses, 1953 (for short "PPEL Rules"). This application, as stated above, was rejected by respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 confirmed the said order in an appeal filed by the petitioner.

4. Mrs. Thadhani, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the BFL Rules framed under the BP Act are stringent and, in detail, prescribes the statutory distance required to be maintained from religious and educational institutions. She submitted that, in fact, the license was granted to the petitioner by the State Excise Department only after the premises in which the restaurant is situated was being inspected physically by the senior officers. Ms. Thadhani further submitted that the FL-III license was granted by the statutory committee constituted under section 44A of the BFL Rules and respondent No. 1 is the member of the said committee. She stated that the State Excise Department having granted FL-III license, respondent No. 1 now cannot refuse to grant public entertainment license. She also submitted that the license is refused only on the ground that the petitioner has not made provision for parking spaces and, therefore, in future there would be possibility of traffic problem. She submitted that the order rejecting the license is discriminatory inasmuch as respondent No. 1 has granted several public entertainment licenses to similarly situated establishments. She lastly submitted that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner deserves to be granted public entertainment license.

5. Ms. Cardozo, learned AGP appearing for the respondents vehemently contested the petition. She submitted that after grant of FL-III license to the petitioner, report was received from the Traffic Control Branch objecting the grant of the public entertainment license on the ground that it will result in traffic congestion. She submitted that under the Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991 (for short "the DC Rules"), the petitioner is required to make an arrangement for 7 independent parking slots for the customers visiting his establishment. Since the petitioner has not made any provision for the same, the license came to be rejec