Mere Filing Of FIR Against Restaurant Owner Not Ground To Cancel Its Performance License, Unless Case Results In Conviction: Bombay HC

"It is settled law that until held guilty, a person should be treated as innocent, and therefore, mere registration of crime would not furnish ground to cancel license", Justice Sandeep K. Shinde held.

The petitioner had a performance licence under the Rules for Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Amusement (other than Cinemas) and Performance for Public Amusement (including Melas, Tamasha), 1960.

The Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) issued a show cause notice to the petitioner in July 2016 for violation of licence conditions. The petitioner did not respond to the notice after which the performance licence was cancelled. The petitioner appealed before the Principal Home Secretary (Appeal and Security), Maharashtra. On March 22, 2018 the appeal was decided ex-parte by an order (impugned order) confirming the order passed by the DCP. The petitioners sought review of this order which was dismissed. Thus, the petitioner approached the High Court in a writ petition.

Advocate R. D. Soni for the petitioners informed the court that since the appeal was decided the petitioner is not playing musical instruments, orchestra etc. at the establishment. He said that the licence has been cancelled based on crimes registered under section 294 of the IPC (obscene acts and songs) and under section 3 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 (advertisements containing indecent representation of women) against the establishment or its owner or servants.

He contended that according to Government Resolution dated January, 23 2019, mere pendency of prosecution cannot be a ground for cancelling the licence unless the licence holder or the agent or servant are convicted of the offence.

He further submitted that the appeal was decided without hearing the petitioner. He said that the petitioner was ready to appear before the DCP to file reply to the July 2016 show cause notice after which the DCP may pass appropriate order.

The court perused the affidavit of the Assistant Commissioner and noted that it does not specify whether the licensee has been convicted in respect to the offence registered against him. Mere registration of crime would not furnish ground to cancel licence, the court held.

The court held that the DCP could not have relied on the crimes registered against the licensee or its servant in view of GR of January 23, 2019. Further, the performance licence has been cancelled ex-parte. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the DCP to decide the issue once the petitioner appears before him and files reply to the show cause notice

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 12188 of 2022

Case title – Geeta Lunch Home v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 461