Kucchuputen Parampil Skarya James Prop. of Hotel Sensational Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO.182 OF 2008

¶4

 Kucchuputen Parampil Skarya James ...Petitioner

¶5

 Versus

¶6

 State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

 Mr.Pankaj Kansara i/b Kansara & Thanekar for
 Petitioner.

¶8

 Mr.R.R.Bhosale, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶9

CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

¶10

 FEBRUARY 1, 2008.

¶11

 P.C.

¶12

 1. Heard Counsel for the parties on admission
 of the Petition.

¶13

 2. The first contention raised on behalf of

¶14

 the Petitioner is that the proposed action against
 the Petitioner is not in accordance with the

¶15

 provisions of law. Counsel for the Petitioner
 relying on Rule 27 of Rules for Keeping Places of
 Public Entertainment In Greater Bombay, 1953

¶16

 : 2 :

¶17

 submits that the show-cause notice makes no
 reference to any offending action so as to prevent

¶18

 any obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance, risk,
 danger or damage to the residents or passengers in
 the vicinity or to prevent disturbance in such
 place and every person keeping a place of public
 entertainment to comply with such direction. To
 buttress this argument, Counsel placed reliance on
 the decision of our High Court reported in 2004 (1)
All.MR 677 in the case of Allahbaksh Ismail Ebrahim

¶19

vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors. In my opinion,
 this argument is devoid of merits. The argument
 clearly overlooks that the show-cause notice
 invokes at least two tangible grounds as can be
 discerned from the show-cause notice. The first
 ground is that the Petitioner has breached the
 conditions of license on five different counts
 referred to at pages 53 and 54. The additional
 ground stated in the show-cause notice is that
 although action of suspension has been resorted to
 against the Petitioner on three occasions in the
 past, the Petitioner has indulged in the breach of
 license condition unabatedly. On this allegation,
 the Authority proceeded to consider action of

¶20

 : 3 :

¶21

 cancellation of license as is noted in the
 show-cause notice. Those grounds are indisputably
 ascribable to ground provided in Rule 27 when the
 Commissioner of Police is competent to cancel or
 suspend the license, if the licensee is not a
 suitable person for continuing to hold the license.
 The Petitioner has placed reliance only on the
 latter part of Rule 27. Rule 27 will have to be
 read as a whole and if so read, I have no
 difficulty in taking the view that the proposed
 action of the Respondents against the Petitioner
 was clearly covered by the provisions of Rule 27.
 Thus understood, the decision pressed into service
 by the Petitioner is of no avail.

¶22

 3. The next argument canvassed on behalf of
 the Petitioner is that the show-cause notice was
 not accompanied by relevant materials on which the
 Authority proceeded to issue show-cause notice
 against the Petitioner. This argument merely
 deserves to be stated to be rejected. No such
 grievance was made by the Petitioner before the
 First Authority on receipt of the show-cause
 notice. It would have been a different matter if

¶23

 : 4 :

¶24

 the Petitioner, in response to the show-cause
 notice, was to immediately write to the competent
 Authority to furnish all the relevant material, in
 absence of which, the Petitioner was to be deprived
 of making effective representation. That has not
 happened in the present case. Instead, the
 Petitioner proceeded to file elaborate reply to the
 show-cause notice and participated in the enquiry
 before the First Authority as well as the Appellate
 Authority without any demur. The argument of
 breach of natural justice on account of non-supply
 of documents is only an afterthought which cannot
 be entertained at this belated stage.

¶25

 4. The next argument of the Petitioner is
 that the punishment imposed by the Authority is
 disproportionate and excessive. According to the
 Petitioner, the Petitioner was at best found
 responsible in respect of eight items referred to
 in the show-cause notice (see pages 52 and 53).
 Out of the eight items, one matter was subjudice
 before the Court which cannot be reckoned to
 proceed against the Petitioner. According to the
 Petitioner, out of the remaining seven cases, in

¶26

 : 5 :

¶27

 one case, there is serious dispute about the fact
 that the restaurant was kept open beyond the
 specified time. It is the argument of the
 Petitioner that going by the complaint, it is
 obvious that only six customers were found in the
 restaurant at around 2.45 a.m. and it was not as
 if regular business activities were going on in the
 restaurant. This argument clearly overlooks that
 the fact that six customers were found enjoying the
 hospitality in the restaurant at 2.45 a.m. is not
 disputed. That justifies the case already
 registered against the Petitioner. Insofar as that
 case is concerned, the deposit amount has been
 forfeited as is noted in the show cause notice.
 Besides, I find substance in the argument of the
 Counsel for the Respondents that during the enquiry
 before the First Authority the Petitioner plainly
 conceded the cases referred to at item Nos.2 and 3
 at page 53 regarding breach of Rule 8(1) and 8(2)
 as is noted at page 54 clause (2) in the order
 passed by the First Authority. Suffice it to
 observe that it is a case of persistent breach of
 license condition committed by the Petitioner,
 deserving no leniency.

¶28

 : 6 :

¶29

 5. The Counsel for the Petitioner would then

¶30

 contend, relying on the decisions of our High Court
 in the case of Hotel Haveli vs. The State of
Maharashtra & Ors. in Writ Petition No.7106 of
1998 decided on 23rd February 1999 and case of
M/s.Hotel Krishna vs. Dy.Commissioner of Police &
Ors. in Writ Petition No.655 of 1999 decided on
15th February 1999. In both these cases, contends
 learned Counsel for the Petitioner, there were
 large number of cases registered against the
 license holders. Inspite of that, the Court
 proceeded to reduce the suspension period only for
 seven days and fifteen days respectively. Suffice
 it to observe that the reduction of suspension of
 license period in those cases was on the basis of
 concession made by the concerned Government Pleader
 as recorded in the order itself. Moreover, there
 is nothing in the said decisions in both the cases
 to show that the license was suspended on earlier
 three occasions, as is the case on hand. In the
 show-cause notice, it is stated that the license of
 the Petitioner was firstly suspended for seven days
 in the year 2002, for ten days in the year 2003 and

¶31

 : 7 :

¶32

 for fifteen days in the year 2004. That fact is
 not in dispute. If it is so, the punishment now
 imposed by the First Authority against the
 Petitioner to the extent of suspension of license
 for a period of 35 days, is, in my opinion, quite a
 considerate view taken by the Authority. In fact,
 the initial proposal of the Authority was to cancel
 the license of the Petitioner. Instead of ordering
 cancellation of license, the Authority has imposed
 much lesser punishment - only of suspension of
 license for a period of 35 days. In the facts and
 circumstances of the present case, it is not
 possible to take the view that the suspension for a
 period of 35 days is excessive.

¶33

 6. The Counsel for the Petitioner would then
 contend that the Appellate Authority in Paragraph 5
 of the impugned order has noted facts which are
 incorrect. According to the Petitioner, the
 Petitioner had not argued the said grounds recorded
 in Paragraph 5 of the impugned order. Whereas, the
 Petitioner had argued different grounds which have
 not been adverted to by the Appellate Authority at
 all. In this backdrop, it is contended that the

¶34

 : 8 :

¶35

 decision of the Appellate Authority suffers from
 non-application of mind. The Petitioner has raised
 this ground specifically in ground 7.1 at Page 23.
 Ordinarily, I would have been inclined to relegate
 the Petitioner before the Appellate Authority, but
 having regard to the finding recorded by me on
 merits, no fruitful purpose would be served by
 remitting the matter to the Appellate Authority.
 No other argument is canvassed before this Court on
 behalf of the Petitioner which would require
 consideration by the Appellate Authority in the
 first instance.

¶36

 7. The only other grievance made by the
 Petitioner is that the Appellate Authority has
 reiterated the opinion recorded by the First
 Authority as it is. That shows that the Appellate
 Authority has not applied its mind. In my opinion,
 even this submission cannot be countenanced.
 Indisputably, the Appeal provided by the provisions
 of Bombay Police Act is to be considered by the
 State Government which Appeals are decided by the
 Minister (Home). The Appeal in the present case is
 a reasoned decision. The fact that the Appellate

¶37

 : 9 :

¶38

 Authority has affirmed the view of the lower
 Authority in all respects does not necessarily
 result in a case of non-application of mind.
 Significantly, the Appellate Authority in the
 present case is not a Court manned by trained
 Judges. Suffice it to observe that the opinion
 recorded by the Appellate Authority in the impugned
 Judgment, in my opinion, is unexceptionable.

¶39

 8. In any case, for the reasons already
 recorded earlier, I have no difficulty in taking
 the view that this Petition is devoid of merits.

¶40

 Hence, dismissed.

¶41

 A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

Kucchuputen Parampil Skarya James Prop. of Hotel Sensational v. State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kucchuputen Parampil Skarya James Prop. of Hotel Sensational v. State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The M.T.N.L. Vs Savitridevi Jajoo.

M.T.N.L. Vs Shri Severius Chales Carvalho.

Ranjit Kalwa Benewal and 18 Ors. Vs Gurukrupa Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and 24 Ors.

M.T.N.L. and Anr. Vs Mohmed Ratique H.Saleh Mohamed

American President Lines Ltd. Vs the M.T.N.Ltd.

The M.T.N.Ltd. Vs Sipran Enterprises and Ors.