Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rajeev S. Mehta, is the sole proprietor of M/s. Senorita Bar and Restaurant, which holds various licences including an Eating House Restaurant Certificate from the Commissioner of Police and an FLIII Licence from the Collector, Mumbai city, under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. The FLIII Licence authorizes the sale and service of foreign liquor, but before the petitioner can actually sell or serve liquor, he is required to obtain a Public Entertainment Licence under the Bombay Police Act, 1951, as per Section 2(10) and Rule 3 of the Public Entertainment Rules. The petitioner applied for the Public Entertainment Licence, but the Commissioner of Police (Hotel Branch) rejected the application by order dated 12 September 2014 on the sole ground that the petitioner did not have its own parking lot sufficient for at least five vehicles. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.10188 of 2014, which was disposed of on 20 November 2014 directing expeditious disposal of the appeal. The appellate authority (State) confirmed the rejection by order dated 18 December 2014. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging both orders. The Court examined the provisions of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and the Public Entertainment Rules and found that the only precondition for grant of a Public Entertainment Licence under Rule 3 is that the applicant must hold a licence for the sale of liquor under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. Since the petitioner already held a valid FLIII Licence, the rejection on the ground of inadequate parking was arbitrary and not supported by any statutory provision. The Court held that the Commissioner of Police cannot impose additional conditions not found in the statute or rules. Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned orders and directed the Commissioner of Police to grant the Public Entertainment Licence to the petitioner within two weeks, subject to compliance with other lawful conditions.
Headnote
A) Licensing - Public Entertainment Licence - Parking Requirement - Section 33 Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Rule 3 Public Entertainment Rules - The Commissioner of Police rejected the petitioner's application for Public Entertainment Licence solely on the ground that the petitioner did not have its own parking lot sufficient for at least five vehicles. The Court held that the requirement of parking is not a condition precedent for grant of Public Entertainment Licence under the Act or Rules, and the rejection was arbitrary and unsustainable. (Paras 1-9) B) Licensing - Public Entertainment Licence - Precondition - Section 2(10) Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Rule 3 Public Entertainment Rules - The Court noted that the only precondition for grant of Public Entertainment Licence under Rule 3 is that the applicant must hold a licence for sale of liquor under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. Since the petitioner already held a valid FLIII Licence, the rejection on extraneous grounds was illegal. (Paras 3-9) C) Licensing - Public Entertainment Licence - Arbitrariness - Section 33 Bombay Police Act, 1951 - The Court observed that the Commissioner of Police cannot impose additional conditions not found in the statute or rules. The denial of licence on the ground of inadequate parking was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. (Paras 7-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commissioner of Police can refuse a Public Entertainment Licence under the Bombay Police Act, 1951 solely on the ground that the applicant does not have its own parking lot sufficient for at least five vehicles, despite the applicant holding a valid FLIII Licence under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and other requisite licences.
Final Decision
The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned orders dated 12 September 2014 and 18 December 2014, and directed the Commissioner of Police to grant the Public Entertainment Licence to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of the order, subject to compliance with other lawful conditions.
Law Points
- Public Entertainment Licence cannot be denied solely on ground of inadequate parking if other licences are valid
- Section 33 of Bombay Police Act
- 1951 does not mandate minimum parking requirement
- Rule 3 of Public Entertainment Rules requires liquor licence as precondition not parking
