WRIT PETITION NO. 6332 v. District Magistrate, Kolhapur & Ors.

Mr. Surel S. Shah for the petitioner. Ms. P. S. Cardozo, AGP for R-1, 2 & 5. Mr. P. C. Kansara for R-3. Mr. S. V. Sadavarte for R-4. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : September 27, 2011. P. C. :

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. Respondent no.2 – Tehsildar by his order dated 21/2/2011 cancelled the Premises Licence as well as Performance Licence in respect of the establishment by name Hotel Highway-In and Permit Room, under section 162(2) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 in view of several complaints lodged against that establishment. This order is confirmed by respondent no.1 in an appeal by respondent no.3, and therefore, the present writ petition.

The premises on which Hotel Highway-In and Permit -: 2 :- wp-6332/11 Room is in operation belongs to respondent no.4. Respondent no.3 is the Conductor of the said hotel. The petitioner is the person in whose favour the above Licences, namely, the Premises Licence and Performance Licence came to be granted. Though these Licences are issued in the name of Petitioner, same were granted in respect of premises belonging to respondent no.4. Mr. Sadavarte, learned counsel for respondent no.4 makes a statement that he has revoked NOC given to the petitioner for the purpose of applying for Premises Licence and Performance Licence. The impugned order of respondent no.1 Collector is not being challenged by respondent no.4. Respondent nos.3 & 4 have accepted the impugned order. They have categorically stated before this Court that they are not interested in challenging the impugned order.

Mr. Surel Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Premises Licence and Performance Licence are cancelled by the Tehsildar without granting him an opportunity of hearing. In my view, the premises in respect of which the aforesaid Licences are granted, cannot be separated from those Licences. The petitioner in the absence of any -: 3 :- wp-6332/11 premises in his possession, could not have granted the Premises Licence or for that purpose the Performance Licence, which is a consequential. Since respondent no.4 has revoked NOC in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner, in my view, cannot make any grievance about cancellation of Licences. Respondent no.1 has considered this aspect in proper perspective and rightly dismissed the appeal. The petitioner was heard by respondent no.1 and thereafter passed the impugned order, which I find to be in consonance with the provisions of Bombay Police Act and Rules made thereunder for issuance of various Licences. I do not see any reason so as to enable to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed.

(RANJIT MORE, J.)