A petition challenging a 30-day suspension of a Police Licence for a public entertainment establishment. The Court found no infirmity in the administrative orders reducing the suspension period from 120 days and dismissed the petition, holding the owner liable for staff breaches.
Petition dismissed; Rule discharged; No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1/10
wp-1419-10.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1419 OF 2010
Aroop Bishwanath Das owner of Swaroop Restaurant & Bar
...Petitioner
v/s.
State of Maharashtra & ors.
...Respondents
Mr.Pankaj Kansara i/b Kansara Thanekar for the Petitioner. Mr.R.J.Mane, AGP for the Respondents/State.
CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J. DATED : 8 MAY 2015
P.C.:
The Petitioner by this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution impugns the order dated 21 April 2010 passed by the Respondent No.4-Minister (Home) in Appeal confirming the order dated 3 November 2009 passed by the Respondent No.3-Dy. Commissioner of Police suspending Licence to Keep a Place of Public Entertainment (Police Licence) issued to the Petitioner under the Rules for Keeping Places for Public Entertainment in Greater Bombay,1953 framed in exercise of powers under the Bombay Police Act, 1951 for a period of 30 days.
1/10
2/10
wp-1419-10.doc
2. The Petitioner is running a Bar & Restaurant under the name and
style of “Swaroop Restaurant & Bar”. The Respondent No.3 issued a Notice dated 10 September 2009, inter alia, calling upon the Petitioner to show cause why the Police Licence of the Petitioner should not be suspended for 120 days. In the said Show Cause Notice, it is stated that the Petitioner had committed breach of Rule 7A, 8(1), 8(2), 6, 21-A and 24 of the Rules for Keeping Place of Public Entertainment in Greater Bombay, 1953, the details whereof are as follows:
“(i) Breach of Rule 7A
Local police has submitted a report and papers in respect of your Establishment and it is seen that local police has visited your Establishment on 26-03-2009 at about 2:05 hours and it is noticed that your Establishment was kept open. As per Rule 7-A, Establishment is required to be closed at 01:30 hours. Still you have kept your Establishment open beyond the prescribed time and, therefore, you have committed a breach of Rule 7-A.
(ii) Breach of Rule 8(1)
From the report and papers received against your Establishment it is noticed that, on 09-05-2009 at about 21.20 hours you were not present and you were found running the Establishment through a person by name Sudeep Sadhana Datt, so called Manager.
2/10
3/10
wp-1419-10.doc
As per Rule 8(1), it is obligatory on the part of the licensee to remain present. You were found running the Establishment through unauthorized person. In fact, there is a provision to enroll the name of the Manager on the license. For that you have not made necessary application and intentionally you were running the said Establishment through unauthorized person and, therefore, there is a breach of Rule 8(1).
(iii) Breach of Rule 8(2):
From the reports and the papers received with regard to our Establishment, it is seen that on 09-05-2009 at about 21.20 hours, you were not personally present and you were running the Establishment with so called Manager Shri Sudeep Sadhana Datt.
Upon perusing the Public Entertainment License, you have not taken prior permission for recording the name of the Manager and had not submitted three specimen signatures or thumb impression and, therefore, there is a breach of Rule 8(2).
(iv) Breach of Rule-6
It is obligatory on the part of licensee to abide the provisions of Mumbai Shop and Establishment Act, 1948. As per section 33 of the said Act, ladies employees are not permitted to work after 9:30.
3/10
4/10
wp-1419-10.doc
Local Police on 12-12-2008 visited your Establishment at about 22:00 hours, 5 ladies waitress, 7 ladies waitress on 26-3-2009 at about 02:05 hours are found beyond time as in place of Public Entertainment. Further the said ladies waitresses were found behaving indecently and in obscene manner. You have therefore permitted the said ladies waitress to work beyond time and, therefore, there is breach of Rule 6.
(v) Breach of Rule 21-A
It is obligatory on your part to strictly abide by rules and regulations of Police Licence. The Local Police visited the Establishment on 22-11-2008 at about 21:10 hours 6 ladies waitress and on 22-12-2008 at about 21.10 hours 6 ladies waitress, on 18-02-2009 at about 20.45 hours 3 ladies waitress, on 2-3-2009 at about 20.45 hours 3 ladies waitress, on 26-3-2009 at about 2.05 hours 7 ladies waitress, on 25-4-2009 at about 19.30 hours 5 ladies waitress and on 9-5-2009 at about 21.20 hours 2 ladies waitress were found behaving indecently and in obscene manner. You have knowingly on the said date permitted the said ladies bar girls to behave indecently and in obscene manner and thereby committed breach of Rule 21-A.
(vi) Breach of Rule 24:
The Establishment owner has to consider the aim of Rule 24 and has to strictly abide the said rules.
4/10
5/10
wp-1419-10.doc
From the reports, papers received from the Local Police station it is noticed that Local Police has inspected your Establishment on 26-03-2009 at about 2.05 hours your Establishment was found open beyond time. Similarly on 9- 5-2009 at about 21.30 hours, Local Police has reported that you were not personally present and you were running the Establishment through so called Manager and you have no control over the same. Further on 22-11-2008 at about 21.10 hours Local Police inspected your Establishment, 6 ladies waitress, on 12-12-2008 at about 22.00 hours 5 ladies waitress, on 26-12-2008 at about 21.10 hours 5 ladies waitress, on 10-2-2009 at about 21.20 hours 5 ladies waitress, on 18-2-2009 at about 20.45 hours 3 ladies waitress, on 2-3-2009 at about 20.45 hours 3 ladies waitress, on 26-3-2009 at about 2.05 hours 7 ladies waitress, on 25-4-2009 at about 19.30 hours 5 ladies waitress and on 9.5.2009 at about 21.20 hours 2 ladies waitress were found behaving indecently and in obscene manner. Further on 12-12-2008 and 26-03-2009, the ladies waitress were found working beyond prescribed time.
From the above, you have time and again committed breach of Rules 7-A, 8(1), 8(2), 6 and 21-A and hence you are not running the said Establishment in accordance with law and irregularly. Hence, there is breach of Rule 24.
5/10
6/10
wp-1419-10.doc
the Show Cause Notice denying the allegations. It was pointed out that in some cases which have been registered against the lady waitresses, the Competent Court had passed an acquittal order and some cases are pending. It was further pointed out that the person who is stated to be the Manager is not a Manager.
“Considering the above said submission, I have come to the following conclusion.
6/10
7/10
wp-1419-10.doc
which discharge order is passed and in remaining 6 cases are subjudiced. From the above it is seen that you are not running the establishment smoothly.
Iii) From the action taken against your establishment time and again it is clear that you are not taking due diligence in running the said establishment. Further, considering the antecedent it is seen that earlier for the breach of rules, the local police has initiated the proceeding for which your police licence came to be suspended for 7 days, in the year 1999 and for 3 days in the year 2006. Still there is no improvement in your behaviour and you are repeatedly committing breach of rules. You have therefore committed breach of rules. You have therefore committed breach of Rule 7A, 8(1), 8(2), 6 and 21A and also Rule 24 of the Entertainment Rules, 1953. Because of the breaches of the rules committed regularly, there is likelihood of breach of peace in the nearby vicinity and it is therefore necessary to take necessary action.
iv) As per section 131AA of the Bombay Police Act, the licensee is equally liable for any breach committed by any employee or officer from his establishment.
Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts I am passing the following order:
ORDER
The police license bearing No.49 issued to Shri Bishwanath K. Das, Shri Swaroopkumar B. Das, Shri Nirupkumar B.Das and
7/10
8/10
wp-1419-10.doc
Shri Aroopkumar B. Das of M/s.Swaroop Restaurant & Bar, 542 Gulalwadi Corner, Teen Batti, Mumbai- 400 004, has been suspended for a continuous period of 30 days.
Sd/-
(Vijay Jadhav) Dy.Commissioner of Police HQ-I for Commissioner of Police”
“5. Before taking decision in the above said appeal an opportunity of hearing was given to the Appellant. It is necessary to curb the illegal activity of the Appellant and therefore the Respondent has suspended the Police License of the Appellant for 10 days and the said punishment is fair and proper. The Hon'ble High Court Aurangabad Bench in Writ Petition No.72/2008 in case of Sanjay Jaiswal v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors. has passed an order that the Owner of Establishment is liable and responsible for any offence committed by the Staff or other. The Respondent as per section 33 and 10(2) of Mumbai Police Act is entitled to take action against the Appellant. The Criminal
8/10
9/10
wp-1419-10.doc
proceeding and action for breach of rule are independent and separate. The licensing authority has power to take administrative action and in this proceeding only breach of rule as any correspondence. I have considered the above fact and I have come to conclusion that the order passed by Dy.Commissioner of Police (HQ-1) Greater Mumbai is proper to avoid law and order problem.
9/10
10/10
wp-1419-10.doc
the Petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
order as to costs.
(A.A. SAYED, J.)
kambli
10/10
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the administrative orders suspending the Police Licence for a period of 30 days due to repeated breaches of public entertainment rules.
Whether the owner of an establishment is liable for breaches of rules committed by the staff or employees.
Whether the impugned orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the Minister (Home) suffered from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference under Article 226.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sanjay Jaiswal v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors.Referred¶71
Writ Petition No.72/2008 in case of Sanjay Jaiswal v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Aroop Bishwanath Das
State of Maharashtra
A.A. Sayed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
