CHANDRASHEKAR SHETTY Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24th March, 2006 passed by first respondent bearing No. DLG/E and T/68/2004-05 vide Annexure-J, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought for a mandamus, directing the first respondent to grant licence to the petitioner to run his Royal Video Games in Shop Nos. 8 and 9 at Jubilee Complex, from the premises mentioned in the cause title pursuant to deemed licence.

(2.) THE grievance of petitioner in the instant writ petition is that petitioner was a licensee under the Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Amusement Order, 1985. THE said licence granted by the Competent Authority was in force till 31st December, 2005. Since petitioner intended to change the place of operation of his business, he filed the application seeking fresh licence. Since the authorities did not communicate the decision or otherwise of the said licence within the stipulated time, it was considered as a deemed licence. When petitioner opened his shop, on the basis of deemed licence, it was raided and the opetation of his business was stopped. THE said action of the authority was questioned before this Court by the petitioner, by filing a writ petition in W.P.No. 17749 of 2005 and the said writ petition came to be allowed with a direction to the authority to consider the grant of licence afresh within two weeks and reserved liberty to respondents to cancel the licence if the petitioner is convicted in criminal case. However, the same was not considered by the authorities within the stipulated time. When the reminder application was filed once again by the petitioner, his request was considered and issued the impugned endorsement dated 24th March 2006, rejecting the application filed by petitioner on the ground that, running of video games will not be good for common people and young generation as there is a possibility of gambling, that there is no parking space for the customers and that Crime No.190 of 2005 is registered against the petitioner. Assailing the correctness of the registered endorsement, as referred above, petitioner herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition.

(3.) AFTER careful perusal of the grounds urged by petitioner, as referred above, and the submission made by learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents including the statements made in the impugned endorsement dated 24th March,2006 vide Annexure-J, I do not find any error or illegality as such committed by first respondent in issuing the said endorsement , rejecting the licence to the petitioner for running the video games in the premises which is located in the center of the extension area. That too, there is shortage of parking place in the area chosen by the petitioner for starting the video games. Since the decision taken by the first respondent is keeping in view the public in general and the residents of the locality in particular, it is not justifiable to interfere in the impugned endorsement and permit such person to carry on the business. The licensee of the petitioner is rejected on the basis that, there is not proper place or conducive atmosphere for starting the video games and it is not in good interest of the area which the petitioner has chosen. Further, it is specifically referred and recorded in the impugned endorsement that, petitioner, under the guise of running the video games, is entertaining the gambling activities, which is not in the good interest of public and there is no parking place for the persons who come to play the video games. Therefore, in the interest of justice and interest of public in general, particularly, the locality, where petitioner is intending to run the video games, the impugned endorsement is issued. Further it is pertinent and significant to note that, the first respondent has recorded a specific finding that, when the premises where the video games shop of the petitioner is situate was raided, it was found that, some of the persons had engaged themselves in gambling activities and therefore, a criminal case was registered in Crime No. 190 of 2005 under the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules. Therefore, taking into consideration all these relevant factors, the said authority has opined that, the place chosen by petitioner to run the video games is not a fit place and not in good interest of general public, particularly young generation and also in order to maintain peace and tranquility in the area, rejected the licence sought for by petitioner under the relevant provisions of the Amusement Order, 1995. The said specific finding and reasoning recorded by the first respondent is after taking into consideration the ground reality and on the basis of the report submitted by the jurisdictional Competent Authority dated 13th Match, 2006, and the same is just and proper. Therefore, I do not find any good grounds as such made by petitioner to interfere in the impugned endorsement issued by first respondent, rejecting the licence to the petitioner to run the video games.