LAWS(BOM)-2014-12-189

IYANDURAI CHINAPPA KAUKAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Decided On December 18, 2014
Iyandurai Chinappa Kaukar Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mrs. Veena Thadhani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. P.S. Cardozo, learned AGP for respondents. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and, by consent, the matter is heard finally.

(2.) By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the orders dated 3rd July, 2014 and 1st August, 2012 passed by the 2nd and 1st respondents respectively, whereby applications made by the petitioner for grant of public entertainment license was rejected.

(3.) The petitioner is the sole proprietor of restaurant in the name and style of M/s. Hotel Reena Restaurant and is carrying on business in shop No. 9/10, Survey No. 461, C.S.T. No. 262, Link Road, Opposite Goregaon Sports Club, Near Swagat Park, Malad West, Mumbai-400064. The petitioner was granted Eating House Registration Certificate by the 1st respondent on 30th December, 2010 for carrying on business of restaurant. The petitioner thereafter applied for FL-III license under the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 (for short "the BFL Rules") framed under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (for short "the BP Act") and, accordingly, FL-III license was granted after verification by State Excise Department on 14th October, 2011. The petitioner thereafter paid the license fees amounting to Rs. 3,63,000/- and this license is being renewed thereafter every year. The petitioner was informed that before commencing the business, he is required to obtained another license viz. Public Entertainment License under the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (for short "the Police Act") from the Commissioner of Police. The petitioner, accordingly, applied to the 1st respondent for public entertainment license under the Police Act read with the Rules of Places of Public Entertainment Licenses, 1953 (for short "PPEL Rules"). This application, as stated above, was rejected by respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 confirmed the said order in an appeal filed by the petitioner.