Hotel Sadguru Resturant And Bar Thr Its Proprietor vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Office Of Govt Pleader And Ors

2026:BHC-AS:18568
-WP-3680-2026-+.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3680 OF 2026

M/s Hotel Sadguru Restaurant and Bar
Through Its Proprietor
Nagesh Padmappa Suvarna
Age:- 70 years, Occupation – Business,
situated at Takpada, Makwana Road,
Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 059. ..Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
Through Home Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.
2. The Divisional Commissioner of Konkan
Division,
3. The Commissioner of Police,
Office of Commissioner of Police,
Mumbai – 400 001.
4. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
H.Q-I (Hotel Branch),
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Mumbai – 400 001.
5. The Senior Inspector of Police
MIDC Police Station,
Andheri (East), Mumbai 401 104. …Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1528 OF 2026
WITH
ARS 1/11

-WP-3680-2026-+.DOC
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1468 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 1528 OF 2026
Nagesh Padmappa Suvarna
Age:- 70 years, Occupation – Business,
The Proprietor and License holder of
M/s Hotel Sadguru Restaurant and Bar,
situated at Takpada, Makwana Road,
Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 059. ..Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
Through Home Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.
2. The Divisional Commissioner of Konkan
Division,
Having address at Opp. Jehangir Art Gallery,
Mumbai – 400 001.
3. The Commissioner of Police (Brihan Mumbai),
office of Commissioner of Police,
Commissioner Compound,
Near Crawford Market,
Mumbai – 400 001.
4. The Deputy Commissioner of Police,
H.Q-I (Hotel Branch), Mumbai,
Having office at
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Commissioner Compound,
Crawford Market, Mumbai – 400 001.
5. The Sr Inspector of Police
MIDC Police Station,
Andheri (East), Mumbai.
…Respondents
Mr. R.D. Soni, with Sujay N. Gawade, Mudita Pawar with Mihika
Save, i/b Shree & Co, for the Petitioner in WP/3680/2026.
ARS 2/11

-WP-3680-2026-+.DOC
Mr. M.V. Holamagi, i/b Sujit Holamagi, for the Petitioner in
WP/1528/2026.
Mr. P.G. Sawant, AGP, for the Respondents-State.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
th
DATE : 16 APRIL 2026
JUDGMENT:
WRIT PETITION NO: 3680 OF 2026:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and, with the consent of
the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. This Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India assails the legality, propriety and correctness of an order dated
th
13 February 2026 passed by the Appellate Authority (R2) in Appeal
No. 55 of 2025, whereby the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner against
th
an order of cancellation of the Performance Licence dated 7 July 2025,
came to be dismissed by affirming the order of cancellation of licence,
passed by the Competent Authority.
3. The Petitioner runs a restaurant and bar under the name and
style of “M/s Hotel Sadguru Restaurant and Bar”. The Petitioner was
granted a Performance Licence, being Licence No. 515 of 2009, to keep
a place of public amusement under Rule 109 of the Rules of Licensing
and Controlling place of Public Amusement (other than Cinemas) and
Performances for Public Amusement including Melas and Tamashas,
1960 (“the Public Amusement Rules, 1960”).
ARS 3/11

-WP-3680-2026-+.DOC
th th
4. On 28 February 2024 at about 00.05 am and on 8 June 2024 at
about 01.00 am, raids were conducted at the Petitioner’s hotel. During
the course of the inspection, it transpired that there were multiple
breaches of the Public Amusement Rule, 1960 and the conditions of
licence: (i) the size of stage was altered to 8 x 7 feet instead of 10 x 12
feet, (ii) the stage of orchestra was shifted from ground floor to the first
floor, (iii) female singers were performing dance in an indecent manner,
(iv) seven female singers were found concealing their presence in an
enclosed room, and (v) though under the licence, the Petitioner was
th
entitled to have eight male/female singers, on 28 February 2024, 19
th
female singers and 8 June 2024, 15 female and one male singers were
found in the licenced premises.
th
5. Thus a notice was issued to the Petitioner on 11 October 2024
calling upon him to show-cause as to why the performance licence
should not be cancelled.
6. As the Reply given by the Petitioner was not found satisfactory,
after providing an opportunity of hearing, the Competent Authority
professed to cancel the licence recording inter alia that there were
violations of Rules 102, 122-B, 124, 219, 232 and 233 of Public
Amusement Rules, 1960 and Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 of Licence No.
515 of 2009. It was further noted that 12 crimes were registered against
ARS 4/11

-WP-3680-2026-+.DOC
the Petitioner’s establishment, and in the past, twice the licence was
suspended; for 7 days and 15 days, respectively.
7. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal before
Respondent No.2. By the impugned order, Respondent No.2 dismissed
the Appeal concurring with the view of the Competent Authority.
8. Being further aggrieved, the Petitioner has preferred this Petition.
9. It would be contextually relevant to note that the Petitioner has
also preferred Writ Petition No. 1528 of 2026, assailing the order dated
th
7 July 2025 passed by the Competent Authority and a communication
th
dated 28 July 2025, whereby the Competent Authority declined to
review its first order. The Petitioner appeared before the Court in person
and elected to pursue Writ Petition No. 3680 of 2025.
10. Mr. R.D. Soni, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted
that the impugned order is a verbatim reproduction of the show-cause
issued by the Competent Authority. The Appellate Authority has not
bestowed any independent consideration. Therefore, on this count
alone, the impugned order as well as the order passed by the
Competent Authority are required to be quashed and set aside.
11. Secondly, Mr. Soni would urge, the inspection report and the
panchnamas, purportedly drawn at the time of alleged raids, were not
placed either before the Competent Authority or before the Appellate
Authority. Thus, it cannot be said that the Competent Authority has
ARS 5/11

-WP-3680-2026-+.DOC
recorded a finding on the basis of objective material that there were
breaches of the specified Rules or the conditions of licence.
12. Thirdly, despite repeated enunciation by this Court that mere
pendency of the crimes against an establishment cannot be a ground for
cancellation of the licence, the Competent Authority has taken into
account the mere pendency of the crimes and passed the order of
cancellation of the licence. The Appellate Authority has also completely
failed in its duty to evaluate the legality and correctness of the order
passed by the Competent Authority in exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction.
13. In contrast, Mr. P. G. Sawant, the learned AGP, made an
endeavour to support the impugned order. It was submitted that, the
Competent Authority has considered the Reports of violation of the
Rules and conditions of licence and, on that basis, passed a reasoned
order in observance of the principles of natural justice. Thus, no
interference is warranted in the impugned order in exercise of writ
jurisdiction.
14. The legality and justifiability of the order of cancellation of
licence deserves to be tested on the ground, whether the Competent
Authority has arrived at the satisfaction that there was violation of the
Rules and conditions of licence, on the basis of objective material.
ARS 6/11

-WP-3680-2026-+.DOC
15. From perusal of the order passed by the Competent Authority, it
becomes explicitly clear that the Competent Authority has considered
th th
the Reports of breach dated 9 March 2024 and 10 June 2024,
purportedly submitted by the concerned Officer who had conducted the
th th
raid on 28 February 2024 and 8 June 2024, respectively. In addition,
th
the show-cause notice issued to the Petitioner on 11 October 2024 was
considered. The impugned order does not indicate, even remotely, that
the Competent Authority had considered either the inspection report or
the panchnamas drawn by the police officer at the time of the alleged
raids.
16. Mr. P. G. Sawant, the learned AGP has tendered for the perusal of
th
the Court copies of the FIR and spot panchnama dated 28 February
th
2024, and copies of the FIR dated 8 June 2024 and spot panchnama
th
dated 7 June 2024. It was submitted that the aforesaid documents
substantiate the allegations of flagrant violation of the Rules and
conditions of licence. However, Mr. P. G. Sawant, the learned AGP fairly
submitted that, the copies of the First Information Reports and the spot
panchnamas drawn at the time of alleged raids were not placed before
the Competent Authority. Evidently, the Competent Authority has
th
considered only the alleged Reports of violation dated 9 March 2024
th
and 10 June 2024. Neither, the FIRs nor spot panchnamas were placed
before the Competent Authority. Thus, it cannot be said that the
ARS 7/11

-WP-3680-2026-+.DOC
Competent Authority arrived at a subjective satisfaction, on the basis of
the relevant underlying material, that there was breach of the Rules and
conditions of licence.
17. The Rule 238(1) and (3) of the Public Amusement Rules, 1960,
read as under:
“238. Powers to suspend or cancel Licenses:—
(1) The Licensing Authority may suspend or cancel any license
granted under these rules for contravention of any of these Rules
or of failure of the licensee to comply with any reasonable
directions which the Licensing Authority may issue in order to
prevent any obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance, risk of danger
to the members of the audience in the theatre provided that the
Licensing Authority shall give the license an opportunity to show
cause before taking any action under this sub-rule.
… … …
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-rules (1) and (2) the
Licensing Authority may, in its absolute discretion at any time
cancel or suspend any license granted under these rules an may
direct the licensee to close the premises either permanently or
temporarily, or direct him to comply with such directions and
instructions that he may issue in order to prevent any obstruction,
inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger or damage to the
residents or passers-by in the vicinity or for the maintenance of
public safety and the prevention of disturbance in the premises
and ever licensee shall forthwith comply with any such directions
or instructions given by the Licensing Authority, and if the
licensee fails to comply with such directions and instructions his
license shall be liable to immediate suspension or cancellation.”
ARS 8/11

-WP-3680-2026-+.DOC
18. Implicit in the aforesaid Rules is the satisfaction and finding that
there is indeed contravention of any of the those Rules or conditions of
licence. In the absence of the copies of the Reports and spot
panchnamas, the Competent Authority was, in a sense, disabled from
forming an informed opinion about the violation of the Rules or
conditions of licence. The necessary implication is that, the Competent
Authority passed the order of cancellation of licence solely on the basis
th th
of the Reports of violation dated 9 March 2024 and 10 June 2024.
19. Such decision of the Competent Authority cannot said to be in
consonance with the principles which govern the determination by an
Authority, that was taking an administrative decision which affects the
civil rights of the parties. It was incumbent upon the authorities to place
before the Competent Authority the Report and the spot panchnamas.
Thus, I find substance in the submissions on behalf of the Petitioner.
20. A useful reference in this context can be made to an order passed
by this Court in the case of Krishna B Shetty Vs State of Maharashtra
1
and Anr. The observations in paragraph 9 read as under:
“9. It cannot be disputed that what was alleged was in fact
violation of the Rules and conditions which required the
concerned authority to arrive at a finding of fact that such
violations had taken place. As the proceedings were initiated
upon police inspection of the premises and panchnama was
conducted, it was necessary that all the record is placed
th
1 ASWP No. 2246 of 2023, decided on 16 July 2024.
ARS 9/11

-WP-3680-2026-+.DOC
before the Respondent No.2 and the Appellate Authority
before a decision is taken on the show cause notice. Perusal of
the order of Respondent No.2 and that of the Appellate
Authority does not indicate that the police report was placed
for their consideration and there is no discussion on the
police report or the panchanama to arrive at a finding of
acceptance of the report on record of the concerned police
officers who had inspected the place and found violations.”
21. The consideration of the pending crimes against the Petitioner
was also legally infirm. Suffice to note that, in a line of decisions,
2
commencing from Dilip J Bhatia Vs The Commissioner of Police, Thane,
a Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Maruti Vitthal
3
Gopale Vs The State of Maharashtra and Anr, and the judgments of this
Court in the cases of Suresh M Mali Vs The State of Maharashtra and
4 5
Ors and Ganpat Mahadev Patil Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors,
this Court has consistently held that, mere pendency of a prosecution
for commission of offences cannot be a ground for cancellation of the
licence to run a business in the premises, or performance or amusement
licence. The foundational premise is that, the indictemnt on the
strength of which a crime has been registered is yet to be proved at the
trial. In the event conviction is recorded, different consideration come
into play. Till the time the matter is in the realm of allegations only, the
2 2001 1 BomCR 448.
th
3 WP No. 5675 of 2006, decided on 12 October 2006.
th
4 WP No. 7848 of 2011, decided on 24 November 2011.
th
5 WP/2491 of 2013, decided on 20 June 2013.
ARS 10/11

-WP-3680-2026-+.DOC
accused cannot be visited with the consequences of revocation of
licence.
22. Resultantly, the order of cancellation of licence and the impugned
order, which has affirmed the first order without examining the legality
and validity of the former, , deserve to be quashed and set aside.
23. Hence, the following order:
(i) Writ Petition No. 3680 of 2026 stands allowed.
th
(ii) The impugned order dated 13 February 2026 as well
th
as order dated 7 July 2025 passed by the Competent
Authority, cancelling the licence No. 515 of 2009 stand
quashed and set aside.
(iii) The performance licence stands restored.
(iv) Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(v) In view of the election made by the Petitioner in
person to prosecute Writ Petition No. 3680 of 2026 only,
and the disposal of Writ Petition No. 3680 of 2026, Writ
Petition No. 1528 of 2026 stands disposed.
(vi) In view of the disposal of Writ Petition No. 1528 of
2026, Interim Application No. 1468 of 2026 also stands
disposed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
ARS 11/11
Signed by: S.S.Phadke
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 20/04/2026 21:23:54