SURENDRAKUMAR S SURANA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition challenges the order of suspension of the licence issued to the petitioner under the Bombay Police Act for running a place of public entertainment. The petitioner carries on the business of a Restaurant and Permit Room. On 20th January, 1994, the petitioner applied for a licence to run a place of public entertainment under the Bombay Police Act. Accordingly licence bearing No. 49/94 was issued to the petitioner. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 22nd January, 1998 for keeping his premises open beyond the prescribed time during the period from 19th January, 1996 to 27th December, 1996. After giving a personal hearing to the petitioner the 2nd respondent on 11th August, 1998 suspended the licence of the petitioner for 15 days. This suspension was to take effect 30 days after the receipt of the order by the petitioner. The petitioner received the order on 13th August, 1998. By a letter dated 21st August, 1998, the petitioner informed respondent No. 2 that the establishment would be closed for 15 days from 23rd August, 1998 till 6th September, 1998. An order dated 10th November, 1998 was issued directing the concerned Police Station to close the establishment for 15 days as the letter dated 21-8-1998 which the petitioner claims to have sent was not received by the respondents. The petitioner informed the respondents that he had already kept the licensed premises closed in accordance with the order dated 11th August, 1998 and therefore, there was no need to comply with the order afresh.

(2.) MR. Sawant for the petitioner submits that the licence was issued to the petitioner under section 33 of the Bombay Police Act which were framed by the police for the preservation of law and order in a public place. He submits that sub-section (w) empowers the police to issue licence or control places of public amusement or entertainment. He further submits that the licence issued under this section read with section 2 (10) of the Bombay Police Act is a licence in respect of Permit Room in the Restaurant and not for the Restaurant itself. He contends that during the period for which the licence was suspended, the petitioner had infact kept the Permit Room closed. However as the suspension order did not apply to the Restaurant, this part of the establishment had been kept open during that period. He therefore, submits that the order dated 10th November, 1998 directing him to close the establishment, including the restaurant, for 15 days is illegal and cannot be enforced against the petitioner.

(3.) MS. Kalyanram on behalf of the respondents submits that the licence which was issued under the Bombay Police Act was in respect of the entire establishment including the eating house or restaurant. She submits that on 29th August, 1998, the police had raided the establishment as it was not closed despite the order of the respondents suspending the licence. She submits that at the time of raid on 29th August, 1998, the establishment was found open beyond the prescribed time.