Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Hotel Suraj, operated an eating house with licenses for orchestra, liquor service under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949, and an 'A' type entertainment license under Section 33(w) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 read with the 1953 Rules. On 11th November 2009, at 1:25 a.m., the Senior Inspector of Police, Immoral Trade, Social Service Branch, Bombay inspected the premises. Nine lady waitresses were found making obscene gestures and in close contact with customers, who were throwing Indian currency notes at them. The petitioner (licensee) was absent, and the establishment was being conducted by Ravi H. Adhikari and Dinanath H. Adhikari, who had no authentication under Rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the 1953 Rules. Two actions were taken: (1) Local Act Offence Nos. 3247/2009 to 3255/2009 under Section 110 of the Bombay Police Act against the waitresses, and Nos. 3256/2009 and 3257/2009 under Section 33(1)(w) against Ravi and Dinanath; (2) a show cause notice dated 29th December 2009 under Rule 27 of the 1953 Rules to the petitioner for license cancellation, also citing complaints from the Garden View CHS Ltd. The petitioner replied on 7th January 2010. The licensing authority cancelled the license. The petitioner challenged the cancellation by way of writ petition. The court examined the record and found that the findings of fact were not perverse. The court noted that the petitioner's reply admitted the presence of the waitresses and the absence of the licensee but sought to justify the conduct. The court held that the cancellation was justified and not disproportionate. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Bombay Police Act - License Cancellation - Place of Public Entertainment - Obscene Acts - Licensee's Duty - The petitioner's license was cancelled under Rule 27 of the 1953 Rules after police found lady waitresses making obscene gestures and in close contact with customers, and the licensee was absent with unauthorized persons managing the establishment. The court held that the findings were not perverse and the cancellation was justified. (Paras 2-5) B) Bombay Police Act - License Cancellation - Show Cause Notice - Rule 27 - The show cause notice dated 29th December 2009 was issued to the petitioner under Rule 27 of the Place of Public Entertainment Rules, 1953, calling upon him to show cause why the license should not be cancelled. The petitioner's reply was considered but the licensing authority found the allegations proved. (Paras 5-6) C) Bombay Police Act - License Cancellation - Judicial Review - The court held that the findings of fact by the licensing authority were not perverse and the cancellation was not disproportionate. The petition was dismissed. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's entertainment license under Rule 27 of the Place of Public Entertainment Rules, 1953 was justified based on the findings of obscene acts by waitresses and absence of the licensee and unauthorized persons managing the establishment.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- License cancellation
- Place of Public Entertainment
- Obscene acts
- Licensee's duty to supervise
- Authentication of employees
- Rule 27 of 1953 Rules
- Section 33(1)(w) Bombay Police Act
- 1951
