Performance license refusal based on speculative public objections violates natural justice and Article 19(1)(g).

The Petitioner, sole proprietor of M/s Hausa Restaurant & Bar in Navi Mumbai, holds valid Eating House and Foreign Liquor (FL-III) licenses.

The Petitioner applied for a Live Music Orchestra performance license under the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, and the Public Amusement Rules, 1999.

On February 24, 2025, Respondent No. 1 (Licensing Authority) rejected the application citing Rule 104 of the 1999 Rules, primarily based on objections from 23 housing societies and 232 citizens who feared the establishment would become a "dance bar," potentially creating a law and order situation.

The Petitioner appealed to the Divisional Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal on August 14, 2025, via a summary order concurring with the Licensing Authority.

The Petitioner challenged these orders before the High Court alleging violation of natural justice and infringement of the fundamental right to carry on business.

1. Whether the refusal of the performance license was vitiated by a breach of the principles of natural justice due to the lack of a personal hearing at the initial stage.

2. Whether an appellate hearing can cure the absence of a fair hearing by the original Licensing Authority.

3. Whether public objections based on the perceived "morality" or "potential misuse" of a license constitute a valid ground for refusal under Rule 104 of the Public Amusement Rules, 1999.

4. Whether the refusal of the license violated the Petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

The Court applied Section 33 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, and Rules 4, 94, and 104 of the Public Amusement Rules, 1999, which govern the licensing of public entertainment.

It relied on Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution regarding the right to practice any profession or trade, subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6).

Procedurally, the Court applied the principle from UMC Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. FCI [para. 34] and CORE v. ECL SPIC [para. 35] that administrative actions with civil consequences require a prior hearing.

It further cited Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P. to establish that a total lack of natural justice at the original stage cannot be cured by an appellate body.

On substantive merits, the Court applied State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd., holding that a licensed trade is not inherently noxious (res extra commercium).

The Court applied Hotel Priya v. State of Maharashtra, which rejected arbitrary restrictions based on stereotypical societal views or "social control".

The Court observed that the Licensing Authority failed to provide the Petitioner with any opportunity to be heard or to rebut the objections raised by the public, which is a flagrant violation of natural justice.

Relying on Krishnadatt Awasthy, the Court rejected the State's argument that the appellate hearing cured this defect, noting that an unfair trial followed by a fair appeal does not satisfy the requirements of justice.

Regarding Rule 104(g), the Court held that the "residuary power" to refuse a license is not unfettered and must be exercised on objective grounds.

The Court noted that the building was entirely commercial and that the Licensing Authority had already granted orchestra licenses to 43 other establishments in the same area, including bars in the same building.

Consequently, refusing the Petitioner’s license based solely on the "misplaced apprehension" of citizens that it might become a "dance bar" was found to be discriminatory and lacking an objective basis.

The Court emphasized that once a trade is regulated by statute, the State cannot use its own notions of "morality" or "public protest" to trample upon fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g).

It held that the refusal was arbitrary, lacked objective evidence of a law and order threat, and violated procedural fairness.

The Court directed the Licensing Authority to grant the performance license to the Petitioner within four weeks, provided other standard conditions are fulfilled.

Rule was made absolute with no costs.