JUDGMENT

V L Achliya, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally.

2. By this Petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.04.2019 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned order") passed by the respondent No.1 i.e. District Magistrate, Beed. By the impugned order, the respondent no.1 has cancelled the licence issued in favour of the petitioner under the provisions of "The Rules for Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Amusements, (Other than Cinemas) and Performances for Public Amusement, including Cabaret Performances, Discotheque, Games, Pool Game Parlours, Amusement Parlours Providing Computer Games, Virtual Reality Games, Cyber Cafes, Games with Net Connectivity, Bowling Alleys, Card Rooms, Social Clubs, Sports Clubs, Meals and Tamashas Rules, 1960" (hereinafter referred to as "the said Rules") as well as sale of tickets for such performance. Being aggrieved the petitioner has preferred this Petition.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP representing the respondents. Perused the record and proceedings.

4. By referring to the overall facts of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is holding the performance licence issued under said Rules, which is valid till the year 2021. Without issuing show-cause notice and giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner, the respondent no.1 has passed the impugned order. It is submitted that the action has been taken only on the basis of report submitted by respondent no.2 as to registration of offence U/Secs. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the PITA Act, 1959 and Sec. 370 of the IPC against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that in the event of breach of any of the conditions of licence, the Licensing Authority ought to have given opportunity of hearing to petitioner before taking such drastic action. It is submitted that the registration of offence itself not sufficient to cancel the licence. It is contended that an act and action on the part of the respondent no.1 to pass such order is in gross violation of principles of natural justice as well as violation of fundamental rights guaranteed to petitioner under the Constitution of India. It is further contended that in the catena of cases decided by this Court it has been consistently held that any action taken in violation of the principles of natural justice is unsustainable in law. In support of submissions advanced, learned counsel has referred and relied upon the following decisions of this Court :

(i) ( Datwani Hotels Pvt. Ltd., V/s. State of Maharashtra and others, (1988) 2 BCR 95)

(ii) ( Dilip J. Bhatia V/s. The Commissioner of Police, Thane and another, (2001) 1 BCR 448)

(iii) ( Kana Nagu Mhatre V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Police and another, (1996) 3 BCR 714)

(iv) ( Shri K.V. Acharya and another V/s. The State of Maharashtra and others, (2000) 3 BCR 372)

(iv) Criminal Writ Petition No.330 of 2017 in the case of Babasaheb Kisanrao Goje V/s The State of Maharashtra and others, decided on 07.11.2017.

5. On the other hand, learned APP supported the order passed by the respondent No.1. It is submitted that the action on the part of respondent no.1 is neither illegal nor contrary to law. It is submitted that as per powers vested under rule 245 of Chapter XX of Rules for licensing and controlling places of Public Amusements (other than Cinemas) and performances for public Amusement including Melas and Tamashas Act, 1960, the respondent no.1 has suspended the licence granted in favour of petitioner. It is submitted that the respondent no.2 vide report dated 09.03.2019 reported to respondent no.1 about registration of offences U/Secs. 4, 5, 7 and 8 of the PITA Act, 1959 and U/Sec. 370 of IPC against the petitioner and other accused persons vide C.R. No.77/2019, dated 01.02.2019 with Police Station, Kaij, Dist. Beed. It is admitted in the affidavit filed by respondent nos.1 to 3