SUDHIR PAWASKAR Vs. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a proprietor of Avon Guest House located at C-43, South Extension-11, New Delhi. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.7.1997, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, cancelling the licence of the petitioner to run the Guest House. Petitioner had preferred an appeal against the order of Deputy Commissioner of Police before the Lt. Governor, which was also dismissed by the Lt. Governor, vide a speaking order dated 16.9.1998.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to urge that the impugned orders dated 19.7.1997 and 16.9.1998 are not sustainable. He submits that the orders have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Secondly, that the orders proceed on grounds which are extraneous to those set out in the show cause notices issued to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the impugned orders are the result of malafide action of the police, at the behest of his business rival, who is determined to ruin the petitioner. Lastly, learned counsel urged that the cancellation of the licence in so far as it is based on the contravention of Regulation 31 of the Regulations for keeping places of Public Entertainment in the Union Territory of Delhi under the Delhi Police Act is not sustainable inasmuch as the said regulation contemplates a plurality of occurrence of the offence. Not only this, it mandates knowledge of the petitioner and mens rea on his part. He further submits that the proceedings are vitiated on account of reliance on extraneous grounds not included in the show cause notice.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the respondent, in opposition, as also perused the show cause notices, replies thereto, and the impugned orders passed. The submission that the order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice is devoid of merit. The first show cause notice was issued on 13.11.1995, which was duly replied to on 21.12.1995. The ground in this notice was that the premises in question is located in a residential area and hence Guest House could not be run. A supplementary notice dated 10.5.1996 was issued wherein a specific ground of the Guest House being used for prostitution was taken. Particulars of the couple found indulging in prostitution were also mentioned. Petitioner in fact sent a detailed reply on 22.5.1996, setting out its position. A third show cause notice was also issued on 18.2.1997. In this notice, it was alleged that while licence had been granted for 9 rooms and 17 beds, petitioner in contravention was found to be running 20 rooms. Reply to this notice has also been given on 17.7.1997.