BANUDAS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE HUBLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) on 29th september, 1993, i directed the government pleader to take notice and consequently the authorities are deemed to be represented. The main relief sought for is against the 3rd respondent represented by the government pleader. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as for respondents 1 to 3 and respondents 4 and 5. Having regard to the nature of the relief sought for in the writ petition it was heard for final disposal.

(2.) the petitioner is aggrieved by the two endorsements issued by the police commissioner, hubli, directing the petitioner to close the lodging house. The first contention of the petitioner is that the Police Act does not envisage the obtaining of any licence when no food is served in the lodging house. The second contention pertains to the deeming provision in the licensing and controlling Order, 1989, based on the following facts. Out of abundant caution petitioner applied for renewal of earlier licence under the Provisions of the licensing and controlling of places of public entertainment Order, 1962 on 18-12-1992. If the application is not considered within 12 days the licence is deemed to have been granted as per the said licensing order. Therefore, if no official order was issued by 31st december, 1992 the petitioner was deemed to have been granted the licence. In the instant case, on 22nd December and on 27th december, 1992 petitioner was told that his application was being considered but no order was made till the end of december, 1992. For the first time somewhere in 18-1-1993 or so an endorsement, annexure-a, was issued asking the petitioner to close the lodging house for non-renewal of licence. This was followed by another endorsement dated 20-3-1993, annexure-b. There can be no doubt that the petitioner's application was deemed to have been granted by the lapse of time and therefore the first respondent had no competence to issue the two endorsements, annexures-a and b. On this short ground both these endorsements are liable to be set aside, and they are accordingly set aside. However, it is also necessary to decide the first question raised by the petitioner.

(3.) the licensing order referred above was under the Provisions of the Karnataka police Act, 1963. Section 2(14) defines "place of public amusement" as follows: