M/S. Shreenidhi Enterprises (Mela) Thr. Its Proprietor Uday Shetty vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. G. P. And Ors

CNR No : HCBM010512922026

Digitally signed
by ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Date:
2026.10.26
20:10:54 +0530
-WP-14055-2026+.DOC
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 14055 OF 2026

..Petitioner
M/s Shreenidhi Enterprises (Mela) Restaurant
and Bar through its proprietor
Shri Uday N Shetty,
Age 51 years,
Situated at Shop No. 10, Mira Apartment
Western Express Highway,
Mira Road (E), Thane – 401107.
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Office of the Government Pleader,
High Court, Appellate Side, Mumbai.
2. The Divisional Commissioner
Kokan Division, Mumbai.
3. The Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Mira Road.
4. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
H.Q-1(Hotel Branch)
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Mira Road.
5. The Senior Inspector of Police,
Kashmira Police Station,
…Respondents
Mira Road 401107.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13823 OF 2026
M/s Shreenidhi Enterprises (Mela) Restaurant ..Petitioner
and Bar through its proprietor
ARS
1/12
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 20:14:06

-WP-14055-2026+.DOC
Shri Uday N Shetty,
Age 51 years,
Situated at Shop No. 10, Mira Apartment
Western Express Highway,
Mira Road (E), Thane – 401107.
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Office of the Government Pleader,
High Court, Appellate Side, Mumbai.
2. The Divisional Commissioner
Kokan Division, Mumbai.
3. The Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Mira Road.
4. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
H.Q-1(Hotel Branch)
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Mira Road.
5. The Senior Inspector of Police,
Kashmira Police Station,
…Respondents
Mira Road 401107.
Mr. R. D. Soni, with Sujay Gawade, Mudita Pawar and Mihika Save,
i/b Shree & Co, for the Petitioner in both Petitions.
Mr. P. G. Sawant, AGP, for the Respondents-State in both Petitions.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
th
DATE : 19 OCTOBER 2026
JUDGMENT:
1.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and with the consent of
the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
ARS
2/12
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 20:14:06

-WP-14055-2026+.DOC
2.
These Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India arise out of the same set of facts in relation to one and the same
establishment. Thus, both the Petitions are taken up and decided by this
common judgment.
3.
The background facts can be stated, in brief, as under:
3.1 The Petitioner runs a restaurant and bar under the name and
style of M/s Shreenidhi Enterprises (Mela) Restaurant and Bar, at Shop
No. 10, Mira Apartment, Western Express Highway, Mira Road (East),
Thane 401107 (the establishment).
3.2 The Petitioner has been granted various licences for the purpose
of operating the said establishment, including a performance licence to
operate an orchestra under the provisions of the Rules for Licensing and
Controlling Places of Public Amusements (Other Than Cinemas) And
Performances For Public Amusement, Including Cabaret Performances,
Discotheque, Games, Pool Game Parlours, Amusement Parlours Providing
Computer Games, Virtual Reality Games, Cyber Cafes, Games With Net
Connectivity, Bowling Alleys, Card Rooms, Social Clubs, Sports Clubs,
Melas and Tamashas Rules, 1960 (“the Rules, 1960”), being Licence No.
12 of 2005. The said licence has been renewed from time to time.
th
3.3 On 15 October 2025 at 10.00 pm, a raid was conducted by the
Kashimira Police at the Petitioner's establishment. CR No. 452 of 2025
for the offences punishable under Sections 3, (8)(1), 8(2) of the
ARS
3/12
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 20:14:06

-WP-14055-2026+.DOC
Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and
Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working Therein) Act,
2016 (“the Act 2016”), has been registered in connection therewith. It
was alleged that there were multiple breaches on the part of the
Petitioner including the provisions of Rules 122(B), 219 and 233 of the
Rule, 1960 and Conditions 3, 5, 10 and 14 of the licence.
st
3.4 A notice was issued to the Petitioner on 21 November 2025,
calling upon him to show cause as to why the performance licence,
th
should not be cancelled. The Petitioner gave a reply on 26 November
nd
2025. Eventually, after giving personal hearing, by an order dated 2
December 2025, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (HQ), Mira-
Bhayandar, Vasai Virar (R4) was persuaded to suspend the licence of the
th
Petitioner for a continuous period of 45 days from 4 December 2025.
3.5 Being aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal being Appeal
No. 91 of 2025 before the Divisional Commissioner, Kokan Division,
Mumbai (R2).
th
3.6 In the meanwhile, on 24 January 2026, another notice was
served on the Petitioner, calling upon him to show cause as to why the
performance licence should not be cancelled. The basis of the said show-
th
cause notice was the raid conducted on 10 November 2025, at the
Petitioner’s establishment, leading to the registration of a crime being CR
No. 486 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 3, (8)(1),
ARS
4/12
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 20:14:06

-WP-14055-2026+.DOC
8(2) of the Act, 2016. It was alleged that there was a breach of Rules
122(B), 219 and 233 of the Rules, 1960 and Conditions 3, 5, 10 and 14
of the licence.
th
3.7 The Petitioner gave a reply to the said notice on 27 January
th
2026. Post personal hearing, by an order dated 7 February 2026, the
Deputy Commissioner of Police (HQ), Mira-Bhayandar, Vasai-Virar (R4),
passed an order to suspend the licence for a further term of 45 days after
nd
the expiry of the first suspension period, pursuant to the order dated 2
December 2025.
3.8 Being aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal being Appeal
No. 4 of 2026 before the Divisional Commissioner, Kokan Division,
Mumbai (R2).
th
3.9 By orders of even date, i.e., 5 October 2026, the Divisional
Commissioner (R2) dismissed both the Appeals.
4.
The Petitioner has, thus, preferred Writ Petition No. 13826 of
2026 assailing the legality, propriety and correctness of the first
nd
suspension order dated 2 December 2025 and the order in Appeal No.
th
91 of 2025 dated 5 October 2026 and Writ Petition No. 14055 of 2026
th
against the second suspension order dated 7 February 2026 and order
th
dated 5 October 2026 dismissing the Appeal No. 4/2026 preferred
thereagainst.
ARS
5/12
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 20:14:06

-WP-14055-2026+.DOC
5.
I have heard Mr. R. D. Soni, the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner, and Mr. P. G. Sawant, the learned AGP for the Respondent-
State, at some length.
6.
Mr. Soni, submitted that both the show-cause notices and the first
and second suspension orders proceed on the same premise. The only
change is the dates of the purported raids on the Petitioner’s
establishment and the registration of distinct crimes in relation thereto.
The orders passed by the Appellate Authority fared no as the Appellate
Authority has simply endorsed the view of the Competent Authority. The
impugned orders passed by the Appellate Authority lack independent
application of mind.
7.
Secondly, and more fundamentally, Mr. Soni would urge that, the
impugned actions are based on mere pendency of the crimes registered
against the Petitioner in relation to the subject establishment. The
Competent Authority has simply reproduced the allegations in the show-
cause notice in the context of the registration of the crimes and only on
the basis of the crimes registered against the Petitioner, proceeded to
suspend the performance licence. It was submitted that, this Court has
repeatedly enunciated that mere pendency of crimes cannot be a
ground to suspend or cancel performance licence.
8.
In opposition to this, Mr. P. G. Sawant, the learned AGP, stoutly
supported the impugned orders. Since the Competent Authority has
ARS
6/12
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 20:14:06

-WP-14055-2026+.DOC
passed the orders of suspension of performance licence based on the
objective material and in conformity with the principles of natural
justice, this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction need
not interfere with the impugned orders, submitted, Mr. Sawant.
9.
The legality and justifiability of the order of suspension of
licence deserves to be tested on the touchstone whether the Competent
Authority has arrived at the satisfaction that there was violation of the
Rules and conditions of the licence on the basis of objective material.
10.
A bare perusal of the orders passed by the Competent Authority
would reveal that the Competent Authority has considered the show-
st th
cause notices issued to the Petitioner on 21 Novemebr 2025 and 24
January 2026 and the registration of the CR No. 452 of 2025 and 486 of
th th
2025 on 15 October 2025 and 10 November 2025, respectively. The
impugned orders, however, do not indicate, even remotely, that the
Competent Authority had either considered the inspection report or the
panchnama drawn by the police officers at the time of the respective
raids. It does not appear that the Competent Authority has even perused
the reports submitted by the concerned police officer. The entire action
seems to have been based on the show-cause notices, the registration of
the crimes and the previous actions of suspension of the licence for
varying periods qua the establishment.
ARS
7/12
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 20:14:06

-WP-14055-2026+.DOC
11.
Mr. Sawant, the learned AGP fairly submitted that the impugned
orders do not indicate that the copies of the inspection report, First
Information Report or spot panchnama drawn at the time of the alleged
raids were placed before the Competent Authority. Thus, in the aforesaid
view of the matter, it cannot be said that the Competent Authority has
arrived at a subjective satisfaction on the basis of the relevant underlying
material that there was breach of the Rules and Conditions of licence.
12.
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
ARS
8/12
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 20:14:06

-WP-14055-2026+.DOC
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.”
13.
Implicit in the aforesaid Rules is the satisfaction and finding that
there is indeed a contravention of any of those Rules or conditions of
the 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 suspension of the licence solely on the
th
basis of the registration of CR No. 452 of 2025 and 486 of 2025 on 16
th
October 2025 and 11 November 2025, respectively.
14.
Such a decision of the Competent Authority cannot be said to be
in consonance with the principles which govern the determination by an
Authority, empowered to take 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 made on behalf
of the Petitioner.
15.
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:
th

1
ASWP No. 2246 of 2023, decided on 16 July 2024.
ARS
9/12
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 20:14:06

-WP-14055-2026+.DOC
“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
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.”
16.
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 the 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 or

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
10/12
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 20:14:06

-WP-14055-2026+.DOC
suspension of the licence to run a business in the premises, or a
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 a conviction is recorded,
different considerations come into play. Till the time the matter is in the
realm of allegations only, the accused cannot be visited with the
consequences of revocation or suspension of the licence.
17.
Resultantly, the orders of suspension of the licence become
suspect. What accentuates the situation is the passing of the second
th
order of suspension dated 7 February 2026 to take effect immediately
after the expiry of the term of first suspension order. In effect the
Competent Authority ordered that the performance licence should
remain suspended for a term of 90 days, continuously. The said course
appeared to fall foul of the principle of non-arbitrariness.
18.
The impugned orders passed by the Appellate Authority, without
carefully examining the legality and validity of the orders of suspension
of the performance licences, also deserve to be quashed and set aside.
19.
Hence, the following order:
(I) (i) Writ Petition No. 13823 of 2026 stands allowed.
th
(ii) The impugned order dated 5 October 2026 as
nd
well as order dated 2 December 2025 passed by the
ARS
11/12
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 20:14:06

-WP-14055-2026+.DOC
Competent Authority, suspending the licence No. 12 of
2005, stand quashed and set aside.
(II) (i) Writ Petition No. 14055 of 2026 stands allowed.
th
(ii) The impugned order dated 5 October 2026 as
th
well as order dated 7 the February 2026 passed by
the Competent Authority, suspending the licence No.
12 of 2005, stand quashed and set aside.
(III) The performance licence stands restored.
(IV) Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
No costs.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
ARS
12/12
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 20:14:06
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)