Mira Road Bar’s Performance Licence Restored After Bombay HC Quashes 90-Day Suspension Based Solely On Pending Cases

The petitioner operated a restaurant and bar under a performance licence issued under the Maharashtra Rules for Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Amusements, 1960.

Following separate police raids on 15 October and 10 November 2025, two crimes were registered under the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working Therein) Act, 2016.

The Deputy Commissioner of Police suspended the licence for 45 days on each occasion, with the second suspension to follow the first; the Divisional Commissioner dismissed the petitioner’s appeals. The petitioner challenged both suspension orders and appellate decisions.

The judgment identifies the first petition as No. 13826 in paragraph 4, but as No. 13823 in its caption and final order.

Rule 238(1) of the Rules for Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Amusements, 1960 permits suspension or cancellation for contravention of the Rules or failure to comply with directions, subject to an opportunity to show cause; Rule 238(3) confers additional suspension or cancellation powers for the stated public-safety purposes.

The authority must reach its satisfaction on relevant material establishing a contravention; registration or pendency of a criminal prosecution alone does not establish the alleged breach or justify suspension or cancellation of a business or performance licence.

The Court relied on Krishna B. Shetty v. State of Maharashtra (ASWP No. 2246 of 2023, decided 16 July 2024), concerning the need to place and consider police reports and panchnamas, and on Dilip J. Bhatia v. Commissioner of Police, Thane, Maruti Vitthal Gopale v. State of Maharashtra, Suresh M. Mali v. State of Maharashtra and Ganpat Mahadev Patil v. State of Maharashtra, which held that mere pendency of a prosecution is not a ground for licence suspension or cancellation.

The suspension orders referred to the show-cause notices and registered crimes but did not show that the authority had considered the inspection reports or spot panchnamas from either raid. The State’s counsel accepted that those materials were not shown to have been placed before the authority.

The authority therefore lacked the relevant underlying material on which to form an informed satisfaction that the Rules or licence conditions had been breached; reliance on the mere registration of the crimes was insufficient.

The appellate authority also failed to examine the legality and validity of the suspension orders independently.

Further, imposing a second suspension immediately after the first, producing a continuous 90-day suspension, compounded the concern of arbitrariness.

Rule was made absolute to that extent, with no order as to costs.