Kala Kendra’s Performance License Can’t Be Cancelled When Alleged Offence Under POCSO Act Not Committed On Premises: Bombay High Court

Justice RG Avachat added that since the proprietor has been acquitted of the crime, the ground for cancellation does not exist anymore.

“It is not the case of authorities that the said offence was committed on the premises of Kala Kendra. Since the ground, on which the petitioner’s license came to be cancelled no longer exists and the license could not have been cancelled on the said ground, the orders impugned herein are liable to be set aside”, the court held.

One Vishal Gangawane, proprietor of Natraj Sanskrutik Kala Kendra had the license to run the set Kala Kendra from June 16, 2017 to March 31, 2018. The license was renewed till March 31, 2021.

In 2017, he was accused under Sections 5 (procuring a person for prostitution) and 6 (detaining someone in premises where prostitution is carried on) of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and various sections of IPC and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

In 2020, he received two show cause notices for cancellation of his license. His license was permanently cancelled on October 25, 2020, due to the crime registered against him. His appeal before the Home Department was dismissed. Hence the present writ petition.

In the petition, the petitioner claimed he never engaged in unlawful activities related to Tamasha. The District Collector ignored his reply to the show cause notices and cancelled the license.

Rule 238 of the Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Amusement (Other Than Cinemas) and Performances for Public Amusement including Melas and Tamashas Rules, 1960 provides for license cancellation due to breach of the Rules.

The court noted that the show-cause notices and the order of cancellation do not indicate that the license was cancelled due to breach of conditions. Thus, it set aside the order of the District Magistrate cancelling the license.

Since the license period is already over, the court directed the District Magistrate to consider petitioner’s application for renewal of license (if he files any) in according to the 1960 Rules. Further, the court directed the DM not to refuse renewal on the same ground that was invoked for cancellation of his license.

Advocate Shrirang Katneshwarkar represented the petitioner while APP A. R. Patil represented the State. 

Case no. – Criminal Writ Petition No. 411 Of 2023

Case title – Natraj Sanskrutik Kala Kendra through its proprietor Vishal Nandkishor Gangawane v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 117