Refusal of orchestra performance license without hearing violates natural justice; invalid if based solely on public fears of dance bar misuse not fitting Rule 104 grounds, infringing trade rights under Article 19(1)(g).

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 14^th 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 24^th 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