Administrative authorities must base license cancellation decisions on objective, evidence-based records rather than mere allegations. Additionally, the mere pendency of criminal charges against a licensee does not justify license revocation, as the presumption of innocence prevails until conviction is established by a competent court.

JUDGMENT:

WRIT PETITION NO: 3680 OF 2026:

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

2. This Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assails the legality, propriety and correctness of an order dated 13th February 2026 passed by the Appellate Authority (R2) in Appeal No. 55 of 2025, whereby the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner against an order of cancellation of the Performance Licence dated 7th July 2025, came to be dismissed by affirming the order of cancellation of licence, passed by the Competent Authority.

3. The Petitioner runs a restaurant and bar under the name and style of “M/s Hotel Sadguru Restaurant and Bar”. The Petitioner was granted a Performance Licence, being Licence No. 515 of 2009, to keep a place of public amusement under Rule 109 of the Rules of Licensing and Controlling place of Public Amusement (other than Cinemas) and Performances for Public Amusement including Melas and Tamashas, 1960 (“the Public Amusement Rules, 1960”).

4. On 28th February 2024 at about 00.05 am and on 8th June 2024 at about 01.00 am, raids were conducted at the Petitioner’s hotel. During the course of the inspection, it transpired that there were multiple breaches of the Public Amusement Rule, 1960 and the conditions of licence:

(i) the size of stage was altered to 8 x 7 feet instead of 10 x 12 feet,

(ii) the stage of orchestra was shifted from ground floor to the first floor,

(iii) female singers were performing dance in an indecent manner,

(iv) seven female singers were found concealing their presence in an enclosed room, and

(v) though under the licence, the Petitioner was entitled to have eight male/female singers, on 28th February 2024, 19 female singers and 8th June 2024, 15 female and one male singers were found in the licenced premises.

5. Thus a notice was issued to the Petitioner on 11th October 2024 calling upon him to show-cause as to why the performance licence should not be cancelled.

6. As the Reply given by the Petitioner was not found satisfactory, after providing an opportunity of hearing, the Competent Authority professed to cancel the licence recording inter alia that there were violations of Rules 102, 122-B, 124, 219, 232 and 233 of Public Amusement Rules, 1960 and Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 of Licence No. 515 of 2009. It was further noted that 12 crimes were registered against the Petitioner’s establishment, and in the past, twice the licence was suspended; for 7 days and 15 days, respectively.

7. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal before Respondent No.2. By the impugned order, Respondent No.2 dismissed the Appeal concurring with the view of the Competent Authority.

8. Being further aggrieved, the Petitioner has preferred this Petition.

9. It would be contextually relevant to note that the Petitioner has also preferred Writ Petition No. 1528 of 2026, assailing the order dated 7th July 2025 passed by the Competent Authority and a communication dated 28th July 2025, whereby the Competent Authority declined to review its first order. The Petitioner appeared before the Court in person and elected to pursue Writ Petition No. 3680 of 2025.

10. Mr. R.D. Soni, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the impugned order is a verbatim reproduction of the show-cause issued by the Competent Authority. The Appellate Authority has