Bombay High Court
Shri Tirthdas B. Mansinghani ... vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 22 November, 2011
Bench: G. S. Godbole
1 13.wp7270.11
ast
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 7270 OF 2011
Shri Tirthdas B. Mansinghani Prop. of
Hotel Sunshine Punjab ....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Respondents
Mr. Pankaj Kansara, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms. P.S. Cardozo, AGP for Respondent No.1.
CORAM:- GIRISH GODBOLE, J
DATED:- NOVEMBER 22, 2011
P.C.
1. Heard Mr. Kansara, Advocate for the Petitioner and Ms. Cardozo,
learned AGP for Respondent No. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable
forthwith and heard by consent of the learned Advocate for Petitioner and
AGP
2. By the impugned order passed by the Licencing Authority on
4/3/2011, the entertainment licence of the Petitioner has been suspended
2 13.wp7270.11
for 21 continuous days. The Appeal filed by the Petitioner has been
dismissed.
3. Two submissions are advanced by Mr. Kansara. One is that the
criminal cases which were filed on the face of the incidence of inspection
dated 26/5/2009 and 23/8/2009 have resulted in acquittal. As far as this
aspect is concerned, the Licencing Authority was justified in holding that
the said acquittal will operate in a different field as it is settled law that
parameters of proof in a criminal trial are different than in disciplinary
proceedings under the Rules. Whereas a criminal trial will require an
absolute and highest degree of proof, that may not be necessary in
proceedings for suspension/cancellation of licence. Hence there is no
merit in the first contention.
4. However, second contention of Mr. Kansara deserves acceptance.
He has drawn my attention to the reply to the show cause notice in which
the Petitioner has specifically demanded that the documents and report
which were sought to be relied upon against the Petitioner should be
furnished to him. From the perusal of the impugned orders, this does not
appear to have been done. On this ground alone and not on merits, the
impugned Judgment and Orders are quashed and set aside and the
3 13.wp7270.11
proceedings are remanded back to the Licencing Authority. Within one
week from today, the Petitioner shall submit a list of documents which she
desires. Within one week thereafter, the Licencing Authority shall furnish
the documents to the Petitioner, if available. With one week thereafter the
Petitioner will be at liberty to file a supplementary/additional reply.
Within 2 weeks thereafter the Licencing Authority will give a fresh
opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and thereupon pass appropriate
orders in accordance with law and on the basis of the material on record,
copies of which has been supplied to the Petitioner. The Writ Petition
therefore partly succeeds with aforesaid directions. Rule is made partly
absolute.
5. It is made clear that the show cause notice is not set aside and the
entire proceedings are to be heard and decided on the basis of the same
show cause notice. In case there are any instances after earlier show cause
notice, the concerned Authority can also issue a supplementary show
cause notice to the Petitioner within one week from today alongwith all
the documents which are available on the basis of which such
supplementary show cause notice is to be served and, the Petitioner will
file reply to the Supplementary show cause notice within one week
4 13.wp7270.11
thereafter. All the proceedings are to be concluded in all respects within a
period of 6 weeks from today.
(GIRISH GODBOLE, J)
