Partly allowed

Bharat Shetty v. State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC4 Mar 2013WP/435/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld the suspension of a liquor license held by the petitioner but reduced the period from 20 days to seven days, finding the original duration unduly harsh for a minor violation without serious incidents. The court also accepted a request to defer the suspension's effect to March 2013.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of license confirmed but period reduced from 20 days to 7 days; effect deferred from original date to 11 March 2013.

Bharat Shetty Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2013)

WP435-13

Sequeira

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 435 OF 2013

¶6

Bharat Shetty .. Petitioner Vs State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents

¶7

Mr.P.C.Kansara, for petitioner. Mr.Amit Shastri, AGP, for respondent.

¶8

CORAM: N.M.JAMDAR, J. Monday 4 March 2013

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

By this petition the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Headquarter-1) dated 9 July 2012 and the order passed by the Principal Secretary (Appeals and Securities) dated 27 November 2012 whereby the license of the petitioner's establishment has been suspended for a period of 20 days.

¶11

The petitioner has a restaurant and bar under the name and style of Hotel Meena Restaurant and Bar. The petitioner has requisite licenses in his favour including the license issued under the provisions of Mumbai Prohibition Act. On 9 February 2011, the officer attached to the Deputy Commissioner of Police Licensing Authority visited the premises of the petitioner at 1.45 a.m. and found that the establishment was open and that one person by name Lokesh Kariappa Gouda was conducting the business. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The

¶12

¶13

WP435-13

¶14

petitioner replied to the show-cause notice on 11 June 2012 and stated that as per Rule 7(A) of the Place of Public Entertainment License conditions, licensee was permitted to keep the place open, not exceeding 15 minutes following the closing hour. The closing time of the establishment as per the license was at 1.30 a.m. and when the police visited at 1.45 a.m. the management was wrapping up the business for the day. It was stated by the petitioner that the petitioner was present in person till 1.30 a.m.

¶15

The respondent No.3- Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 9 July 2012 did not accept the explanation offered by the petitioner and held that since the establishment was open beyond 1.30 a.m. and that the business was conducted through somebody else and therefore there was breach of Rules 7(A), 8(1), 8(2) and 24 of the Rules governing grant of license. The respondent No.3 by the impugned order suspended the license for 20 days.

¶16

The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the respondent No.4 Principal Secretary. The petitioner contended that the establishment was open only for a period of 15 minutes after the closing time and that too for the purpose of wrapping up the business for the day. The petitioner filed written arguments before the appellate authority in which it was stated that the person who was shown as Manager in the show-cause notice was an employee of the petitioner holding valid naukarnama which was issued by State Excise Department, and his name also appeared in muster roll. The appellate authority by its order dated 27 November 2012 negatived the contentions of the petitioner and noted that once earlier also such act was committed by the petitioner and therefore, the license was rightly suspended for a period of 20 days and accordingly, the appeal was

WP435-13

dismissed.

Learned counsel at the outset submits that, the suspension of license for a period of 20 days is disproportionate and unduly harsh. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the violation of the Rules is only to the extent of keeping the establishment open for a period of 15 minutes.

¶21

The learned AGP supports the order and submits that even in the past the petitioner has indulged in such activities and the panchanama placed on record shows that the establishment was open and conducting business beyond the closing hours without the petitioner being present, and therefore the impugned orders are proper.

¶22

Since the learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset had advanced a submission regarding proportionality of the sentence, the challenge needs to be considered in the context of the submission. It appears from record that the establishment was open after the closing time and a fact that Mr.Gouda was present instead of the petitioner. The authorities have on perusal of documents have arrived at this finding of fact which need not be interfered with.

¶23

The only question then is regarding the period of suspension imposed by the authorities. The breach alleged is regarding keeping the Restaurant and Bar open beyond closing period and the other breach is in respect of not remaining present on the establishment. There is no untoward incident alleged on the part of the petitioner. Closing down a business has serious consequences for the establishment and unless a grave

¶24

¶25

WP435-13

¶26

incident affecting public safety or morals is attributed, suspension for the period of 20 days is unduly harsh. At the same time, the fact that earlier also, the license was suspended for a period of 5 days for similar reasons cannot be overlooked. Considering the facts of the case and the consequences of order of suspension, I am of the view that it will be in the interest of justice to confirm the orders passed by the authorities and reduce the period of suspension from twenty days to period of seven days.

¶27

With this modification, the impugned orders are confirmed and the petition is disposed of.

¶28

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the establishment is a running restaurant, it would be difficult to abruptly close the same and the period of suspension be made effective from 11 March 2013 onwards. This request is accepted. The order of suspension will come into effect from 11 March 2013.

¶29

N.M.JAMDAR, J.

Bharat Shetty v. State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Shetty 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Digital Securities Privat Limited Vs

M/S. Tech-Flow Engineers India Private Limited Vs -

Techflow Structures Private Limited Vs

Prakash v. Patkar Vs the Chairman

New India Co-Op Bank Ltd. Vs Maharashtra Navnirman Kamgar Sena and 2 Ors.

Skr Bpo Services Private Limited Vs