Back
2026 Supreme(Bom) 78
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N.J.JAMADAR, J.
Shivaji Sambu Waghralkar, Sole Proprietor of M/s Hausa Restaurant & Bar - Appellant
Vs.
The Commissioner of Police - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 12910 of 2025
Decided On : 02-04-2026
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Bernardo Reis, a/w Pratik Dixit, i/b Parampara Mistry
For the Respondent: Mr. V. G. Badgujar, AGP
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Natural Justice and Licensing
Act Referred
MAHARASHTRA POLICE ACT : S.33, S.33(1)
Public Amusement Rules : R.104, R.4
Headnote
(B) Administrative law - Principles of natural justice - Affected party entitled to hearing before adverse order; failure at initial stage vitiates proceedings even if appeal provides hearing; prejudice presumed in denial of fair procedure. (Paras 33-38)
(C) Constitution of India - Article 19(1)(g) - Right to trade - Regulated activity under license not per se immoral or dangerous; refusal on moral objections or feared misuse impermissible if compliant with statutory scheme; reasonable restrictions only for public interest, not public pressure. (Paras 40-55)
Facts of the case:
Owner of restaurant/bar in fully commercial building, holding eating house and liquor licenses, applied for live music orchestra performance license; public notice drew objections from housing societies, citizens, representatives fearing dance bar; licensing authority refused without hearing citing law and order risks; appellate authority upheld without examining challenges.
Findings of Court:
Orders quashed for procedural infirmity and unreasonableness; performance license for orchestra to be issued within four weeks if other requirements met.
Issues: Validity of license refusal under Rule 104; compliance with natural justice; impact on right to trade; discriminatory treatment vis-à-vis similar establishments.
Ratio Decidendi: Refusal of performance license requires hearing and must align with specified grounds under Rule 104; public objections based on anticipated misuse do not justify denial where applicant undertakes no dance performances and premises suit activity; balances trade freedom against regulated public interest.
Result: Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges refusal of orchestra license on objections. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. parties contest arbitrariness, natural justice, discrimination, law-order risks. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. rule 104 limits performance license refusal to specified grounds. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 4. objections and existing music licenses undermine law-order concerns. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 5. natural justice mandates hearing before license refusal. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 6. licensed orchestra not noxious; restrictions must be reasonable. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 7. misplaced dance fears invalid under rule 104(g). (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 8. refusal quashed; direct orchestra license grant. (Para 55 , 56) |
JUDGMENT :
N. J. JAMADAR, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner takes exception to the order dated 14th August, 2025 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, in Entertainment License Appeal No.15/2025, whereby the said appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 24th February, 2025, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai (R1) rejecting the application for an Entertainment License to operate the Orchestra at M/s. Hausa Restaurant and Bar, came to be dismissed.
3. The petitioner is the owner of M/s. Hausa Restaurant and Bar (the establishment) situated in a fully commercial building named “The Affaire”, located at Flat No.9, Sector 17, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai (the premises). To operate the said restaurant and bar at the said premises the petitioner has obtained an Eating House License issued by the Municipal Corporation and Foreign Liquor License-III (FL-III) under the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953. The petitioner desired to have an Orchestra License for live music performances in the said establishment. The petitioner never intended to, nor intends to hold, “dance performances” in the said establishment. Thus, the petitioner filed an application for grant of a Live Music Orchestra performance license under the provisions of the the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 (“the Police Act, 1951”) and the Rules for Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Amusement (other than Cinemas) and Performances (including Melas and Tamashas), 1999, (“the Public Amusement Rules, 1999”). All requisite compliances were made. No objection certificate was obtained from the concerned police station.
4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that, a misinformation campaign was started by persons having a vested interest. On the basis of the alleged objections received from 23 Co-operative Housing Societies, 232 citizens/local public representatives and one business association, and the media reports indicating opposition to the grant of performance license, respondent No.1, the petitioner asserts, refused the license to operate a live music Orchestra purportedly in exercise of powers under Rule 104 of the Public Amusement Rules, 1999.
5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner under Section 33 of the Police Act, 1951.
6. By the impugned order, the Divisional Commissioner rejected the appeal concurring with the view of respondent No.1 – the Licensing Authority. The petitioner claims that the Appellate Authority did not examine the matter at all and by a one line reasoning that the Licensing Authority rightly decided the application by assessing law and order situation, dismissed the appeal.
7. Being thus aggrieved, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction. A slew of exceptions are taken to the order of refusal of licence passed by the Licensing Authority, and the impugned order.
8. Firstly, the order of refusal of license passed by respondent No.1 was arbitrary and beyond the scope of
