Surendrakumar S. Surana vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr.
2001 Latest Caselaw 648 Bom

JUDGMENT

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. 11 th 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 in fact 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. She further submits that reliance placed on the Foreign Liquor Register which is required to be maintained by the petitioner under the Maharashtra Foreign Liquor (Sales on Cash) Register Rules is misplaced. She submits that entries in the register will only show that the liquor was not sold during that period. However, the entries in the register would not indicate as to whether the entire establishment including the restaurant, was closed as required under the order dated 11th August 1998. She further submits that there has been interpolation in the register for the relevant dates and therefore the register cannot be relied upon.

4-5. Mr. Sawant admitted that the restaurant was kept open during the period in question but as the licence applied to the permit room, and not to the eating house there was no need for the petitioner to close the restaurant. He further submits that for running the restaurant different licences are issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and other authorities. Therefore, the short question for determination is as to whether the licence issued under the Bombay Police Act would apply not only to the eating house but also to the Permit Room. Section 2(10) of the Act reads thus:

" "Place of Public Entertainment" means a lodging-house, boarding and lodging house or residential hotel, and includes any eating house in which any kind of liquor or intoxicating drug is supplied such as a (tavern, a wine shop, a beer shop or a spirit, arrack, tody, ganja, bhang, or opium shop) to the public for consumption in or near such place."

This obviously means that a place of public entertainment includes any eating house in which any type of liquor or intoxicating drug is supplied for consumption. The petitioner's establishment is one such establishment which is not only an eating house but also an establishment which serves liquor to the public for consumption. The licence issued to the petitioner permits the hotel to be kept open till 12.30 midnight only for eating facilitie's on the condition that after 11.00 p.m. no liquor would be served. This clause further permits the petitioner to sell Foreign Liquor in his establishment which is a place for public entertainment. This being so it was necessary under the order of 11th August 1998 for the petitioner to close the entire establishment and not just Permit Room. Admittedly, the petitioner closed only for the Permit Room and not for the eating house from 23rd September 1998 to 6th September 1998.

6. Mr. Sawant also relied on the Judgment of Lodha, J, in Writ Petition No. 102 of 1998 dated 15th January, 1999, wherein licencing authority suspended the licence for certain offences committed over a long period of time. The licence was renewed despite these offences. The learned Judge was of view that the fact that licence had been renewed, would indicate that Competent Authority had not found the breaches committed by the petitioner so serious and any action for suspension or cancellation of the licences on the

basis of those offences would not be valid. This Judgment does not however deal with the issue at hand and therefore, is of no assistance to the petitioner. An establishment which is a place for public entertainment includes both the restaurant or eating house as well as the Permit Room and hence the order passed on 11th August 1998 was proper. Rule discharged with costs. The stay granted in respect of this order will be continued for a period of four weeks for today.

C. C. expedited.

The parties to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by Associate of the Court.

7. Order accordingly.