S. RAMASAMY, PROPRIETOR, PALS RESTAURANT Vs. MR. A.K. VISWANATHAN, IPS, THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CITY POLICE OFFICE, VEPERY, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner / S.Ramasamy, Proprietor of Pals Restaurant, has filed this contempt petition seeking to punish the respondents for not implementing the order passed by this Court on 27.04.2018 passed in Sub Application No.259 of 2018 in Contempt Petition No.2989 of 2016.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the Pal's Restaurant, situated at No.42, Anna Salai, G.G. Complex, Chennai - 2. He was issued with a Public Resort License by the first respondent to run the Indian Cultural Dance show in the said restaurant and that the said license was valid till 30.12.2012. After expiry of the said license, he had also made an application along with the required documents on 12.11.2012 to renew the license to the first respondent. However, the first respondent has not come forward to renew the same. Finally, after waiting for a longer time, a writ petition has been filed in W.P.No.328 of 2014, whereby this Court referring to various orders passed by this Court in a similar matter, granted interim injunction in favour of the petitioner with a condition that the petitioner shall not conduct any obscene dances in the restaurant and conduct the Indian Cultural Dance Programme with strict discipline, dignity and decency and in the event of any violation of such conditions, and if the petitioner allows performance of any obscene dances, liberty is given to the respondent police to take any action against the petitioner for violation of license conditions or for any wrong doing.

(3.) While so, it is submitted, now the police has registered FIR as though the petitioner has been running the restaurant without permission. In view of granting of interim injunction by this Court, they have been conducting the cultural programme with strict compliance of the conditions imposed by this Court, therefore, the very basis and foundation of FIR stating that they have been conducting the cultural programme without the license is totally bad in law. Secondly, second part of the FIR shows that in the said restaurant, they have been conducting obscene programme. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the photographs produced by the respondents, submitted that no one can see any vulgarity/obscene in the said photographs said to have been taken by the police during the inspection. Taking into account that some members and guests are giving money to the dancers as a token of their appreciation, it cannot be construed that the petitioner restaurant is conducting any obscene programme, he pleaded.