M/S Shashwathi Enterprises vs The Commissioner Of Police on 16 December, 2020

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Shashwathi Enterprises vs The Commissioner Of Police on 16 December, 2020

Bench: P.B. Bajanthri

                               1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020

                          BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI


  WRIT PETITION NO.50540/2015(GM-POLICE)

BETWEEN:

M/S SHASHWATHI ENTERPRISES
ALSO CALLED AS PORT OF PAVILION,
REP BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
SRI. MOHAN M SHETTY,
NO.103, SUJATHA COMPLEX,
1ST MAIN ROAD, GANDHINAGAR,
BANGALORE.                                    ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. R HEMANTH RAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
BANGALORE CITY,
INFANTRY ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
                                             ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. LAXMINARAYAN, HCGP)

     THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 12.12.2014 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT VIDE ANN-K
AND ETC.,

      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B
GROUP PHYSICAL HEARING / VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING
(OPTIONAL), THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
                                   2




                               ORDER

In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

a) To issue writ of certiorari to quash/set-

aside the order dated 12.12.2014 passed by the respondent produced vide Annexure-K in the writ petition.

b) To issue any other writ or order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

2. On 27.11.2020, respondent-Commissioner of Police was directed to file an affidavit as to why petitioner is not entitled to notice before cancellation of license of discotheque. In compliance to the order dated 27.11.2020, affidavit dated 15.12.2020 is presented. Wherein, respondent-Commissioner of Police has admitted that petitioner has not been provided an opportunity in paragraph 7 of the affidavit. Paragraph 7 of the affidavit reads as under:-

"7. I humbly submit that Clause 15 of the Order, 2005 prescribes, no license granted under this Order should be cancelled without giving a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why the license should not be cancelled. On perusal of records, it is revealed that the Licensing Authority before passing the order, has not issued show cause notice to the petitioner. I respectfully submit that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to condone the inadvertent lapse occurred in following the 3 procedure before passing the order dated 12.12.2014 and uphold the aforesaid order, which is otherwise legally valid. Provisions under Order, 2005 will be strictly followed in future."

In view of these facts and circumstances, order dated 12.12.2014 (Annexure-K) passed by the respondent is set aside, writ petition stands allowed reserving liberty to the concerned respondent to proceed in accordance with law after issuance of detailed show cause notice. On receipt of the petitioner's explanation, if rules provide for an oral hearing, the same shall be given to the petitioner. Thereafter, proceed to pass a speaking order after considering each of the contentions to be raised by the petitioner and in the light of the Apex Court decisions in the case of GORKHA SECURITY vs GOVERNMENT (NCT OF DELHI) AND OTHERS reported in 2014(9) SCC 105 and PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER reported in 2012(11) SCC 257. Further, Apex Court on 16.11.2020 in C.A. 3687/2020 in the case of U.M.C TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. vs FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA held that before listing a party or a Company in the black-list, the concerned party is required to be heard in the matter and specific reasons must be assigned. 4

The above exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.

Sd/-

JUDGE KPS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court