Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Renuka Loknatya Tamasa Mandal, a cultural organization engaged in Tamasha performances, held a licence under Section 33 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. On 12.04.2019, the District Magistrate, Beed, cancelled the licence based on a police report alleging that the performances were obscene and causing nuisance. The petitioner challenged the order by way of a Criminal Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Court found that the impugned order was passed mechanically without application of mind. The police report did not contain any specific instances of obscenity, no dates or times were mentioned, and no complaints from the public were produced. The District Magistrate merely reproduced the police report and passed the order without independently assessing the material. The Court held that the quasi-judicial function of cancelling a licence cannot be delegated to the police. The order was quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed. Rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Section 33 - Licence Cancellation - Application of Mind - The District Magistrate cancelled the petitioner's licence for Tamasha performances based on a police report alleging obscenity and nuisance. The Court held that the impugned order was passed mechanically without application of mind, as the police report did not specify any particular date, time, or instance of obscenity. The order was set aside. (Paras 5-8)
B) Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Section 33 - Delegation of Quasi-Judicial Function - The District Magistrate relied solely on the police report and did not independently assess the material. The Court held that the quasi-judicial function of cancelling a licence cannot be delegated to the police. The order was quashed. (Paras 6-8)
C) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Judicial Review - The Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to quash the order as it was passed without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice. The petition was allowed. (Paras 1, 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the District Magistrate was justified in cancelling the licence of the petitioner for holding Tamasha performances under Section 33 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, without proper application of mind and on the basis of a police report that did not contain any specific instances of obscenity or violation of licence conditions.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.04.2019 passed by the District Magistrate, Beed is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.
Law Points
- Licence cancellation under Section 33 of Bombay Police Act
- 1951 requires application of mind
- consideration of material
- and adherence to principles of natural justice
- District Magistrate cannot delegate quasi-judicial function to police
- Order must be speaking order with reasons
- Licence cannot be cancelled on vague allegations without evidence
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (10) 27
Criminal Writ Petition No. 896 of 2019
Mr.P.R. Katneshwarkar h/f Mr.S.R. Andhale for petitioner, Mr.S.W. Mundhe, A.P.P. for respondent/State
Renuka Loknatya Tamasa Mandal, through Prop. Ramnath S/o Dharmraj Dhakane
The State of Maharashtra through District Magistrate Beed, Superintendent of Police Beed, Tahsildar/Taluka Executive Magistrate Kej
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal Writ Petition challenging cancellation of licence for Tamasha performances under Section 33 of Bombay Police Act, 1951.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 12.04.2019 passed by District Magistrate, Beed cancelling the licence.
Filing Reason
The District Magistrate cancelled the licence based on a police report alleging obscenity and nuisance without proper application of mind.
Previous Decisions
The impugned order dated 12.04.2019 was passed by the District Magistrate, Beed cancelling the licence.
Issues
Whether the District Magistrate applied his mind while passing the order cancelling the licence under Section 33 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.
Whether the order was based on a police report that lacked specific instances of obscenity or violation of licence conditions.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed mechanically without application of mind, as the police report did not specify any particular date, time, or instance of obscenity.
Petitioner contended that the District Magistrate merely reproduced the police report and did not independently assess the material, thus delegating his quasi-judicial function to the police.
Ratio Decidendi
The District Magistrate, while exercising power under Section 33 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 to cancel a licence, must apply his own mind to the material on record and cannot merely rely on a police report without independent assessment. The order must be a speaking order with reasons. Cancellation based on vague allegations without specific instances of obscenity or violation is unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
By the impugned order, the respondent no.1 has cancelled the licence issued in favour of the petitioner for holding Tamasha performances.
The police report does not specify any particular date, time or instance of obscenity.
The impugned order is passed mechanically without application of mind.
The quasi-judicial function of cancelling a licence cannot be delegated to the police.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 896 of 2019 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad challenging the order dated 12.04.2019 passed by the District Magistrate, Beed cancelling the licence. The petition was reserved on 12.07.2019 and pronounced on 22.10.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Police Act, 1951: 33
- Constitution of India: 226, 227
