Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mrs. Kalyani A. Shetty, who runs Hotel Anand Punjab, challenged the suspension of her license to keep a place of public entertainment. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (HQ1) had suspended License No. 43/Colaba for 30 continuous days by order dated 16.03.2011, purportedly under Rule 27 of the Rules for Keeping Places of Public Entertainments in Greater Bombay. The petitioner's appeal to the Minister (Home Affairs), Government of Maharashtra, was dismissed on 18.08.2011. The petitioner then filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner argued that the suspension was without jurisdiction because the power to cancel or suspend a license is conferred only by Section 162 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, and not by Rule 27. The petitioner contended that no conditions were mentioned in the license, so there was no breach. The petitioner further argued that mere pendency of criminal cases cannot be a ground for suspension, and that for contravention of rules, Section 131 of the Act applies, giving exclusive jurisdiction to the Magistrate. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the impugned order was without jurisdiction. The court noted that the power under Section 162 can be exercised only if the licensee is not fit to hold the license or to prevent obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger or damage to residents or passers-by. Mere pendency of criminal cases does not satisfy these conditions. The court also observed that Rule 27 cannot override the statutory provision. Accordingly, the court quashed the suspension order and allowed the petition.
Headnote
A) Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Section 162 - License Suspension - Jurisdiction - Power to suspend license under Section 162 can be exercised only if licensee is not fit to hold license or to prevent obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger or damage to residents or passers-by - Mere pendency of criminal cases without conviction or breach of license conditions does not justify suspension - Held that the impugned order was without jurisdiction (Paras 4-6). B) Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Section 131 - Contravention of Rules - Exclusive Jurisdiction of Magistrate - For contravention of rules under the Act, Section 131 provides that only a Magistrate can decide whether rules have been contravened - Licensing authority cannot initiate suspension on same set of facts - Held that the licensing authority lacked jurisdiction (Para 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Deputy Commissioner of Police had jurisdiction to suspend the petitioner's license under Rule 27 of the Rules for Keeping Places of Public Entertainments in Greater Bombay, and whether mere pendency of criminal cases constitutes a valid ground for suspension under Section 162 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the suspension order dated 16.03.2011 and the appellate order dated 18.08.2011, and set aside the suspension of the petitioner's license.
Law Points
- License suspension under Section 162 of Bombay Police Act
- 1951 requires breach of license conditions or unfitness of licensee
- mere pendency of criminal cases insufficient
- Rule 27 of Rules for Keeping Places of Public Entertainments cannot override statutory provision
