Karnataka High Court
M/S Chef-Inn Regency vs State Of Karnataka on 13 November, 2020
Author: P.B.Bajanthri
Bench: P.B. Bajanthri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI
WRIT PETITION NO.14195/2015(GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
M/S CHEF-INN REGENCY,
BAR & RESTAURANT,
NO.4, RING ROAD, DOMLUR,
BANGALORE - 560 071.
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. C. RAMESH.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M. KRISHNAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, HOME
DEPARTMENT (POLICE)
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001,
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
NO.1, INFANTRY ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T.P. SRINIVASA, AGA FOR R-1 AND R-2
(MA NOT FILED))
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.3.2015 ISSUED
BY THE R-2 AT ANN-C, AND THE ORDER DATED 27.3.2015
ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANN-D, AND CONSEQUENTLY
DIRECT THE R-2 TO RENEW THE DISCOTHEQUE LICENSE
DATED 26.6.2012 VIDE ANN-B AND ETC.,
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING - B GROUP PHYSICAL HEARING / VIDEO
CONFERENCING HEARING (OPTIONAL), THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the impugned order dt 28.3.2015 bearing No.06/MAG(1)/DT/2012 issued by the 2nd respondent as at Annexure-C and the order dated 27.3.2015 bearing No.153/MAG(1)/Paravanagi/2013 issued by the 2nd respondent as at Annexure-D, and consequently, direct the 2nd respondent to renew the Discotheque License No. 06/DT/2012 dt.26.6.2012 as at Annexure-B.
(b) Grant such other relief or reliefs as may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Petitioner was carrying on the business of Bar and Restaurant in No.4, Ring Road, Domlur, Bengaluru-71 for the last 22 years. He is holder of CL-9 license under the provisions of Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian and Foreign Liquor) Rules, 1968. The petitioner was also license holder of 3 discotheque license which was issued on 26.06.2012 under the provisions of the Licensing and Controlling of Place of Public Entertainment (Bangalore City) Order, 2005 (for short, 'Order, 2005') which was for a period of one year. In terms of clause 10(2), petitioner continued to have the benefit of license under Order, 2005. In the month of March 2015, petitioner submitted an application for renewal of license issued under Order, 2005. Simultaneously, he had submitted application for engaging women employees in his Bar and Restaurant. Both the renewal of license and also seeking permission to engage women employees in the Bar and Restaurant were rejected on 28.03.2015 and 27.03.2015 respectively (Annexures-C and D).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that renewal of the license has been rejected on the score that the petitioner was facing criminal proceedings which were under the investigation as on the date of the submission of 4 renewal application. Renewal of license under Order, 2005 is required to be issued under Clause 10. There is no prohibition to renew the license if a person is facing criminal proceedings. Consequently, rejection of petitioner's application for renewal of license is contrary to Clause 10 of Order, 2005. It was further contended that engaging women employees in the Bar and Restaurant is also with reference to pendency of criminal proceedings lodged against the petitioner. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out from paragraph 6 of the statement of objections that the respondents have admitted that no permission is required to engage the services of women in the Bar and Restaurant in view of the interim order granted in W.P.Nos.37313- 336/2013 vide order dated 14.05.2015. Thus, both the impugned communications are liable to be set aside.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the reasons stated in the 5 impugned communications that the petitioner is a habitual offender. Consequently, there is no infirmity in the impugned communications in respect of rejection of renewal of license under Order 2005. Insofar as engaging women employees in the Bar and Restaurant, the State has admitted in paragraph 6 of the statement of objections that no permission is needed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The petitioner had discotheque license w.e.f. 26.06.2012 for a period of one year. By virtue of Clause 10(2) of Order, 2005, petitioner's license is continued till March, 2015. Thereafter, petitioner submitted application for renewal of discotheque license under Order 2005, the same has been rejected so also in respect of engaging women employees in the Bar and Restaurant for the reasons assigned in Annexures-C and D that the petitioner is involved in criminal proceedings. Therefore, petitioner 6 is not entitled to renew his discotheque license and so also not permitted to engage women employees in the Bar and Restaurant. It is necessary to re-produce Clauses 10, 14 and 15 of Order, 2005.
"10. Renewal of Licence:- (1) Every application for renewal of the licence granted under this Order shall be made at least thirty days before the day on which such licence is to expire. The application shall be accompanied by the licence to be renewed and the amount of fee as specified in clause 18.
(2). Where an application is made in accordance with sub-clause (1), the earlier licence shall be deemed to be in force till the renewal or refusal of such licence is communicated to the applicant.
(3) Application for renewal of licence, not made in accordance with the provisions of this clause, shall be liable to be rejected by the licensing authority.
14. Suspension of licence:- If any person maintaining a place of public entertainment permits prostitution or permits persons to meet or remain in such place for the purpose of planning or carrying out an illegal activity or violates any of the conditions of this Order, the licensing authority shall have the discretion to suspend the licence for such period as he may think fit and direct such person to close the place for such period as the may specify. The person to whom 7 such direction is issued by the licensing authority shall comply with such direction. However the period of suspension shall not exceed 30 days at a time.
15. Procedure for cancellation of Licence:-
No licence granted under this Order shall be cancelled until the holder of the licence has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why this licence should not be cancelled."
7. Perusal of Clause 10-Renewal of license would be rejected only with reference to (3) of Clause
10. For rejection of application to renew license, there is no provision that if a person is facing criminal proceedings in such an event, he is not entitled to have renewal of license. Annexure-C consists of two parts namely rejection of renewal of license and cancellation of license insofar as cancellation of license is concerned relevant provision is Clause 15 cited supra. The petitioner has not been provided opportunity before ordering cancellation of license.
The respondents would have invoked Clause 14- Suspension of license if there is any violation of conditions imposed in the discotheque license. The 8 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 support of the said contention, petitioner relied upon the Apex Court decision in the case of Manoj Narula Vs. Union of India reported in 2014 AIR SCW 5287 (paragraph 113). Paragraph 113 reads as under:-
"113. 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 gainst 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."
In view of these facts and circumstances, the impugned communications are based on the fact that the petitioner was facing criminal proceedings. The reasons assigned in both Annexures-C and D are contrary to Clauses mentioned in the Order, 2005 (Annexure -R2). Thus, petitioner has made out a prima facie case to interfere with the impugned 9 communications (Annexures-C and D). Hence, the following:
ORDER
a) Impugned communications dated 28.03.2015 and 27.03.2015 respectively (Annexures-C and D) are set aside.
b) Respondents are hereby directed to re-
examine the petitioner's application for renewal of discotheque license under Clause 10 of Order, 2005 (Annexure-R2) within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, if petitioner fulfills the criteria, license be renewed in accordance with law.
c) Insofar as engaging women employees, the petitioner need not seek permission in view of the interim order granted in W.P.Nos.37313-336/2013. Such engagement of women employees by the petitioner in his Bar and Restaurant is subject to result of the W.P.Nos.37313- 336/2013 which is pending consideration as on this day.
d) Writ petition is allowed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KPS