- (1.)HEARD the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.
(2.)THE petitioner challenges the orders dated 1. 9. 2003 and 19. 8. 2002, passed by the authorities below under the provisions of the Bombay Police act, 1951, hereinafter called as "the said Act. " The first order was passed by the Appellate Authority while the latter by the Deputy Commissioner of police. By the impugned orders, the licence issued to the petitioner for having amusement programmes at his hotel premises, namely M/s. Hotel topsy, situated at Rizavi Chambers, Hill Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai, has been suspended for a period of 30 continuous days. During the pendency of the hearing and disposal of this petition, pursuant to the issuance of rule, the execution of the said order was stayed.
(3.)THE challenge to the impugned orders is on four grounds. Firstly, that the orders are contrary to the provisions of law applicable to the facts of the case and reveal total non-application of mind to the facts and the law applicable thereto by both the authorities. Secondly, that there has been discrimination in the matter of imposition of penalty, in as much as that some of the similarly situated licence holders were pardoned for similar instances while the petitioner has been subjected to penalty of suspension of licence for 30 days. Thirdly, the Appellate Authority while confirming the order of the Lower Authority has sought to justify the same on the grounds which were neither disclosed to the petitioner at any time nor the respondents had any time relied upon the same for the purpose of action of suspension of the licence of the petitioner. Fourthly, the authorities below erred in ignoring the well-established principles of law that once the renewal of licence was granted irrespective of certain incidents which had occurred during the previous year and which would have perhaps justified refusal of renewal of licence, then subsequently the very instances could not have been made the basis for suspension of licence.