Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, a group of restaurants holding premises licenses under the Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Amusement (Other than Cinemas) and Performance for Public Amusement including cabaret Performance, Melas and Tamashas Rules, 1960, challenged orders dated 12.9.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan-Mumbai. The Commissioner, in exercise of powers under clauses (w)(i), (w)(ii) of section 33 and section 162(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and under rules 108A, 109, 118, 207 and 209 of the Rules, imposed additional terms and conditions on their premises licenses. The petitioners contended that the Commissioner lacked the authority to impose such conditions as they were not provided for in the Rules or the Act. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the Commissioner's power to grant a license is derived from and limited by the statutory provisions. Since the Rules and the Act prescribe specific conditions, any additional conditions imposed by the Commissioner are ultra vires and cannot be sustained. The court allowed the petitions, quashing the impugned orders and the additional conditions, and directed the respondents to refund any fees collected for the additional conditions. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Police Law - Premises License - Additional Conditions - Ultra Vires - Bombay Police Act, 1951, Sections 33(w)(i), 33(w)(ii), 162(1) and Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Amusement Rules, 1960, Rules 108A, 109, 118, 207, 209 - The Commissioner of Police imposed additional conditions on the premises licenses of restaurant petitioners. The court held that the Commissioner has no power to impose conditions not prescribed by the Rules or the Act, as the power to grant license is circumscribed by the statutory framework. The additional conditions were struck down as ultra vires and unreasonable. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commissioner of Police has the power to impose additional conditions on premises licenses issued under the Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Amusement (Other than Cinemas) and Performance for Public Amusement including cabaret Performance, Melas and Tamashas Rules, 1960, beyond those prescribed in the Rules and the Bombay Police Act, 1951.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the impugned orders dated 12.9.2009 and the additional conditions imposed on the premises licenses. The respondents were directed to refund any fees collected for the additional conditions. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Ultra vires
- Unreasonable conditions
- Premises license
- Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Amusement Rules
- 1960
- Bombay Police Act
- 1951
- Section 33
- Section 162
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (05) 25
Writ Petition No.7962 of 2010 with Writ Petition No.7739 of 2010, Writ Petition No.7943 of 2010, Writ Petition No.7958 of 2010, Writ Petition No.7967 of 2010, Writ Petition No.2477 of 2011, Writ Petition No.2478 of 2011, Writ Petition No.2479 of 2011
Mr. R.D. Soni i/b Ram & Co. for the petitioners, Mr. V.S. Gokhale AGP for the respondent-State
Hotel Priya, Hotel Carnival Restaurant & Bar, Sadanand Hindu Vishrant Gruha Bar and Restaurant, Tandoor Bar and Restaurant, Royal Hotel and Beer Bar, Hotel Atithi-Inn Pvt. Ltd (Permit Room), Sonal Bar and Restaurant, Garden View Restaurant & Bar
State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging orders imposing additional conditions on premises licenses of restaurants.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the orders dated 12.9.2009 imposing additional conditions on premises licenses.
Filing Reason
The Commissioner of Police imposed additional conditions on the petitioners' premises licenses which were not authorized by the Bombay Police Act, 1951 or the Licensing Rules, 1960.
Issues
Whether the Commissioner of Police has the power to impose additional conditions on premises licenses beyond those prescribed in the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and the Licensing Rules, 1960.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the Commissioner of Police lacked authority to impose additional conditions as the power to grant license is circumscribed by the Rules and the Act.
The respondent-State argued in support of the orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The Commissioner of Police has no power to impose conditions on a premises license that are not prescribed by the Licensing Rules, 1960 or the Bombay Police Act, 1951. Any such additional conditions are ultra vires and cannot be sustained.
Judgment Excerpts
The Commissioner of Police in exercise of the powers conferred on him by clause (w)(i), (w)(ii) of section 33 and section 162(1) of Bombay Police Act, 1951 and under rule 108A, 109, 118, 207 and 209 of the Rules in addition to the existing terms and conditions mentioned in the Premises License have added the following terms and conditions thereto.
The challenge raised in these writ petitions is similar and hence they are being disposed of by common order.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed writ petitions in the High Court of Bombay challenging orders dated 12.9.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Brihan-Mumbai imposing additional conditions on their premises licenses. The court heard the parties and disposed of the petitions by a common order on 6.5.2011.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Police Act, 1951: Section 33(w)(i), Section 33(w)(ii), Section 162(1)
- Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Amusement (Other than Cinemas) and Performance for Public Amusement including cabaret Performance, Melas and Tamashas Rules, 1960: Rule 108A, Rule 109, Rule 118, Rule 207, Rule 209
