KISHORSINH SYAMSINH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An Arts graduate of University of Gujarat made an application for grant of a license to use certain premises for the purpose of running a lodging and boarding house or guest house which is a public place of amusement and entertainment as defined by sec. 2(10) of the Bombay Police Act 1951 The application has been rejected by the Superintendent of Police Ahmedabad as per order-annexure B dated June 4 1976 on the ground that previously his father was carrying on the same business in the same premises and that said license had to he canceled by an order dated October 22 1975 on the ground that prostitutes had been permitted to stay in the premises in question knowingly and that in the opinion of the Superintendent of Police there was likelihood of a repetition of such user if licence was granted to the petitioner. The order in question reads as under:

(2.) The father of the petitioner-Shyamsinh Thakur - was running a lodging and boarding house (guest house) in a rented premises in Kapasia Bazar locality of Kalupur Ward of Ahmedabad City. On October 22 1975 the license to run the guest house granted to Shyamsinh was cancelled. It appears that Shyamsinh has subsequently died. The petitioner made an application on April 15 1976 and applied for a license in his own name for grant of permission to run lodging and boarding or guest house in the same premises. It is this application made by the petitioner which has been rejected in the aforesaid circumstances.

(3.) The respondents have not filed any affidavit-in-reply nor have respondents produced Rules made under sec. 33 of the Act. Rules in this behalf can be made under sec. 33(1)(w)(i). Even though time was granted to the learned Assistant Government Pleader to contact the department concerned and to procure the rules the learned Assistant Government Pleader has not been able to produce the same as the same have not been made available to him by the department concerned. Rules concerned however appear to have been incorporated in the license issued by the competent authority. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record one such license issued in favour of his brother Narayansinh on May 29 1976 On the reverse of the license Rules purported to have been framed by the competent authority under sec. 33(1) (w)(i) of the Act have been incorporated. For the purpose of the present petition only two rules appear to be relevant viz. Rules 2 and 28. These two rules deserve to be quoted: