Bombay High Court
Hotel Ashok Restaurant And Wine ... vs State Of Mah.Thr.Secr.Mumbai And ... on 4 July, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1
wp1824.06.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.1824 of 2006
1. Hotel Ashok Restaurant and Wine Bar,
through its Proprietor -
Puranlal Harinarayan Jaiswal,
Wardha Road,
Kalamb, District Yeotmal.
2. Hotel Mona Wine Bar,
through its Proprietor -
Panchamlal Natthulal Jaiswal,
Wardha Road, Kalamb,
District Yeotmal.
3. Hotel Pankaj Restaurant and Bar,
through its Proprietor - Shamrao
Tikaram Bante, Bus Stand,
Kalamb, District Yeotmal.
4. Hotel Shivnath Wine Bar & Restaurant,
through its Proprietor -
Smt. Hina Suresh Jaiswal,
Choti Gujni Chowk,
District Yeotmal.
5. Hotel Saki Wine Bar,
through its Proprietor -
Smt. Archana Rajesh Jaiswal,
Near Shani Mandir, Kalamb,
District Yeotmal.
6. Hotel Holiday Inn,
through its Proprietor -
Smt. Archana Rajesh Jaiswal,
Denwer Road, Lohara,
::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2017 00:56:28 :::
2
wp1824.06.odt
District Yeotmal.
7. Hotel Highway Inn,
through its Proprietor -
Nilesh Ratanlal Jaiswal,
Pandharkawda Road,
District Yeotmal. ... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Excise Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Yeotmal,
District Yeotmal.
3. The District Magistrate,
Yeotmal,
District Yeotmal.
4. The Executive Magistrate,
Kalamb,
District Yeotmal. ... Respondents
Shri Rohit Vaidya, Advocate, holding for Shri Anand Parchure,
Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri V.P. Maldhure, Assistant Government Pleader for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2017 00:56:28 :::
3
wp1824.06.odt
Coram : R.K. Deshpande & Mrs. Swapna Joshi, JJ.
th
Dated : 7 July, 2017
Oral Judgment (Per R.K. Deshpande, J.) :
1. This petition challenges the notification
dated 7-3-2002 issued by the respondent No.3 and published in
the Maharashtra State gazette in exercise of the powers under
Section 33 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. By this notification,
the Places of Public Entertainment Rules, 2000 are amended.
The Rules enhanced the licence as well as renewal fee to the
extent of Rs.10,000/-. This is implemented by the District
Magistrate by issuing the order dated 8-5-2002 calling upon the
petitioners to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- under the heading.
2. Shri Rohit Vaidya, Advocate, holding for Shri Anand
Parchure, the learned counsel for the petitioners, invited our
attention to Ground No.(ii) of the petition, at page No.7, to the
effect that the hotel and restaurant owners in Nagpur are paying
the licence fee of Rs.8,00/- for similar nature of activities,
whereas the petitioners are being imposed a fee of Rs.10,000/-
wp1824.06.odt
without there being any basis in support therefor.
3. We find that the Rules framed have enhanced the licence
as well as renewal fee, and if the same are not implemented
uniformly throughout the State, then it is the matter which is
required to be looked into by the respondents. The petitioners
have, however, no right to claim a lesser fee than the one which
is prescribed under the rules framed in exercise of the statutory
powers. We do not find any substance in the challenge raised.
4. The petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. No
order as to costs.
JUDGE. JUDGE.
Lanjewar
