Karnataka High Court
M/S. Cheff-Inn Regency vs State Of Karnataka on 16 January, 2023
-1-
WP No. 63378 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 63378 OF 2016 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
M/S. CHEFF-INN REGENCY
BAR & RESTAURANT,
NO.4, RING ROAD, DOMLUR,
BANGALORE-560 071,
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI. C. RAMESH,
S/O. CHIKKANNAGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M KRISHNAPPA .,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HOME DEPARTMENT, (POLICE),
Digitally
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
signed by R
DEEPA
BANGALORE-560 001,
Location:
High Court
of
Karnataka
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
NO.1, INFANTRY ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, AGA)
-2-
WP No. 63378 of 2016
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 22.4.2016 ISSUED BY THE R-2 AS
AT ANNEXURE-G AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT HIM i.e., R-2 TO
GRANT THE LICENCE TO THE PETITIONER TO RUN THE DANCE
BAR AT THEIR BUSINESS PREMISES VIZ., M/S CHEF INN
REGENCY, BAR AND RESTAURANT NO.4, RING ROAD, DOMLUR
BANGALORE-560 072.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 22.04.2016, passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure-G, filed this writ petition.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this petition are as under:
The petitioner was carrying on a business of Bar and Restaurants and was issued with CL-9 licence under the provisions of Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquor) Rules, 1968 (for short 'the Rules, 1968'). The petitioner obtained a trade licence and all other necessary licenses from the concerned authorities to run the Bar and -3- WP No. 63378 of 2016 Restaurant. The petitioner filed an application on 22.08.2013 seeking permission under Rule 11(1) of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 to run Dance Bar in the premises. The said application came to be rejected vide order dated 02.12.2014. The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 02.12.2014, filed a writ petition in W.P.No.6185/2015.
This Court disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 11.03.2016 and set aside the order dated 02.12.2014 and directed respondent No.2 to reconsider the representation of the petitioner and pass the orders as expeditious as possible. After remand, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order rejecting the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the criminal cases are pending against the petitioner. Hence, on the said ground, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order, has filed this writ petition.
-4-WP No. 63378 of 2016
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate has filed the statement of objections contending that CL-9 licence was granted in favour of the petitioner and further, the petitioner was running a Bar and Restaurant. It is admitted that the petitioner filed an application seeking for grant of permission to run dance bar. It is contended that the said application came to be dismissed on the ground that the criminal cases are registered against the petitioner. Hence, on the said ground, the application was rejected and prays to dismissed the writ petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted an application as per Clause- 4 of the Licensing and Controlling of Place of Public Entertainment (Bangalore City) Order, 2005 (for short, 'Order, 2005'). He submits that respondent No.2 has rejected the said application only on the ground that the -5- WP No. 63378 of 2016 criminal cases are registered against the petitioner. He submits that mere registration of criminal cases against the petitioner, is not a ground to reject the said application.
In order to buttress his arguments, he has placed a reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MANOJ NARULA VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in 2014 AIR SCW 5287. Hence, on these grounds, he submits that respondent No.2 has committed an error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.
6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the criminal cases are registered against the petitioner. He further submits that the licencing authority can refuse to grant a licence on considering the status and antecedents of the applicant. He further submits that several cases have been registered against the petitioner. Considering the -6- WP No. 63378 of 2016 antecedents of the petitioner, the licencing authority - respondent No.2 was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
7. Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was carrying a business of Bar and Restaurant by obtaining CL- 9 licence under the Rules, 1968. The petitioner has submitted an application seeking permission for dance bar in the licence premises under Clause-4 of the Order of 2005. The licencing authority, while considering an application, is required to consider the following aspects as per Clause 7:
a) the interest of public in general;
b) the status and antecedents of the applicant;
c) availability of parking place commensurate with the seating capacity,
d) the possible adverse impact on law and order;-7- WP No. 63378 of 2016
e) vicinity of the place to educational or religious institutions. For this purpose vicinity shall mean within a distance of 200 (two hundred) metres;
f) that the entertainment does not in any way incite religious feelings;
g) that the materials used for the structure do not pose any kind of fire hazard;
h) that the proposed entertainment does not promote public gambling or the premises shall not be used as a gaming house or does not encourage prostitution or allow the use of narcotic substances or permit any other illegal activity;
i) that the licence shall not organise or allow performance of shows which are immoral, obscene or indecent and ensure that there is no obscenity or indecency in dress, movement or gesture or that the performers indecently expose their person;
j) the licencee shall not permit any obscene or objectionable posters or pictures to be exhibited;
k) that the proposed premises do not cause obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger or damage to the residents or to passersby of such premises;-8- WP No. 63378 of 2016
l) that all adequate precautions have been taken in the premises in respect of which the licence is to be granted to provide for the safety, convenience and comfort of the persons attending the programmes therein.
9. From the perusal of the records, it discloses that the criminal cases are registered against the petitioner. The licencing authority gave a reference about four cases. Out of four cases, the petitioner was exonerated in two cases and two cases are under trial. Mere pendency of criminal proceeding is not a ground to reject the application filed by the petitioner. The said view is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Manoj Narula (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in para No.113 held that and reads thus:
"13. Consequently, merely because a First Information Report is lodged against a person or a criminal complaint is filed against him or her or even if charges are framed against that person, there is no bar to that person being elected as a Member of Parliament or being appointed as a Minister in the Central Government."-9- WP No. 63378 of 2016
10. The petitioner submitted an application for renewal of CL-9 License under Order 2005, simultaneously, he had submitted application for engaging women employees in Bar and Restaurant. The said applications came to be rejected vide orders dated 28.03.2015 and 27.03.2015 respectively, on the ground that criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved by the rejection of an applications, preferred writ petition in W.P.No.14195/2015, the Co-ordinate bench allowed the writ petition vide order dated 13.11.2020 and held that the pendency of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would not be a hurdle to run the bar and restaurant with discotheque license and engaging women employees. In the instant case the application of the petitioner was rejected on identical ground.
- 10 -
WP No. 63378 of 2016
12. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and also considering the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No.14195/2015, it is noted that merely the petitioner facing criminal proceedings is not a ground to reject the application filed by the petitioner. The respondent No.2 has committed an error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that criminal proceedings are pending. The impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is contrary to law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MANOJ NARULA (supra). Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
13. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned order is set aside.
- 11 -WP No. 63378 of 2016
iii. Respondent No.2 is directed to issue a licence if the petitioner fulfils the licence criteria.
iv. If the licence is issued to the petitioner and the petitioner violates any of the conditions imposed by the licencing authority, respondent No.2 is at liberty to take action in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE SSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23