Allowed

Ravindra Subbana Shetty and Ors. v. the Deputy Commissioner of Police (H.Q.-1) and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Apr 2013WP/1201/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge quashed orders refusing Place of Public Entertainment License due to parking objections, directing respondent to decide de-novo within four weeks, ensuring no new grounds are used and prior judicial observations are followed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 13.2.2012 and 24.04.2012 quashed; matter remanded for de-novo decision within four weeks.

Ravindra Subbana Shetty and Ors. Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

12-wp-1201-12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1201 OF 2012

¶6

Ravindra S. Shetty and Ors. ....Petitioners. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Police (H.Q.-1) & Anr. ...Respondents.

¶7

Ms. Veena Thadani i/by Mr. Vishal Thadani, advocates for the Petitioners. Mr. R.R.Bhonsale, AGP for the respondent/State. Mr. R.S.Chavan, Desk-X, Police Inspector Hotel Branch present.

¶8

CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J.

¶9

DATED : April 8, 2013.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective

¶12

parties.

¶13

2 Petitioner, by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is challenging the orders of respondent nos.1 and 2 refusing to grant ' Place of Public Entertainment License' (In short ' PPEL ') to his establishment by name, Hotel Saishraddha. Petitioner has already been granted FL-III license by the Collector under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. It is the contention of the petitioner that, said

Shivgan

12-wp-1201-12

license was granted after considering the suitability of the premises.

¶18

3 PPEL has been refused to the petitioner's establishment only on the sole ground that, there is an objection of Traffic Department that, the petitioner has not made any independent arrangement for the parking of vehicles.

¶19

4 In the similar circumstances, this Court made following observations in the order dated 9.3.2004, passed in Writ Petition No.2075 of 2004:

¶20

“Similarly, in so far as the fourth ground is concerned, the issue as regards absence of parking space may well be also considered in order to determine whether to grant the license. The establishment of the Petitioner has been already granted a license to keep a public place of entertainment without any objection on the ground of parking space. Moreover, the authority should have due regard to the fact that in a city like Mumbai, denial of licence due to want of parking space would result in closing down of a large number of establishment on that ground. In so far as the fifth and sixth grounds are concerned, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the aforesaid grounds also relate to the licence for the place of public entertainment, but that in any event the petitioner is willing to furnish such assurances to the authority so as to ensure that there is no breach of the

Shivgan

12-wp-1201-12

conditions of licence.”

¶25

5 Another learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 30^th January, 2013 in Writ Petition Lodging No.2995 of 2012, in the similar facts and circumstances, quashed and set aside the order refusing to grant PPEL and remanded the matter back for de-novo consideration of the application for grant of PPEL, in the light of observations of this Court, in Writ Petition No.2075 of 2004.

¶26

6 Mr. Bhonsale, the learned AGP in the above circumstances states that he has no objection to quash and set aside the impugned orders and to direct respondent no.1 to decide the issue of grant of PPEL to the petitioner de-novo on the basis of instructions of Mr. R.S. Chavan, Police Inspector /Desk-X, Hotel Branch, C.P.Office, Mumbai.

¶27

7 In the light of above stated facts, and especially in view of concession, there is no need to give detail reasons for setting aside the impugned orders.

¶28

8 Petition is accordingly disposed of by passing the following order:

Shivgan

12-wp-1201-12

(I) The impugned orders dated 13.2.2012 and 24.04.2012 of respondent nos.1 and 2 respectively, are quashed and set aside and the matter is relegated back to respondent no.1 for de-novo consideration of the petitioner's application.

¶33

(ii) Respondent no.1 shall decide petitioner's application as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶34

(iii) Respondent no.1 shall not be influenced by the orders impugned in this petition while deciding petitioner's application for grant of PPEL. However, respondent no.1 shall take into consideration observations made by this Court in Writ Petition No.2075 of 2004.

¶35

(iv) Since respondent no.1 initially rejected petitioner's license only on the ground that petitioner has not made any independent arrangement for the parking of the vehicles, license should not be rejected on any other new ground. Respondent no.1 shall restrict decision to the arrangement of parking vehicles by the petitioner.

¶36

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶37

Shivgan

Ravindra Subbana Shetty and Ors. v. the Deputy Commissioner of Police (H.Q.-1) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Subbana Shetty and Ors. v. the Deputy Commissioner of Police (H.Q.-1) and 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

E-City Digital Cinemas Private Limited Vs -------

Iifl (Thane) Private Ltd. Vs ------

Reliance Clean Energy Private Ltd. Vs ---

Shri Radhakrishnan N. Pillai and Ors. Vs M/S.Engineering Export Promotion Council

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs Uttam Shankar Chavan

Juhu Alaknanda Co-Op. Hsg. Socl Ltd. Vs Executive Engineer and 3 Ors.