MANJIT SINGH MOOLSINGH SETHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.</Jpara> <Jpara>[2] RULE. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.

(3.) The Petitioner No. 1 herein is the proprietor of Bar and Restaurant known as karishma Bar and Restaurant situated at Dadar (East), Mumbai. Both the petitioners have been convicted for the offence punishable under sections 365, 367, 368, 394 and 397 of the indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions judge, Mumbai on 6th February, 2007 in relation to C. R. No. V-1997 dated 7th January, 2007, which was lodged at Coloba Police station. In an appeal against the said conviction, the petitioners have been granted bail by this court by Order dated 7th March, 2007. A show cause notice in terms of Section 56 (1) of the bombay Police Act, 1951 came to be issued to the petitioner No. 1 on 16th October, 2007 which was replied by the petitioner on 23rd October, 2007. Thereupon 2nd show cause notice dated 29th October, 2007 came to be issued under section 57 (1) (a) of the said Act, which was also replied to by the petitioner No. 1 on 17th november, 2007. The matter was fixed for personal hearing of the parties on 24th november, 2007. Thereafter the impugned order came to be passed on 26th November, 2007.

(4.) The contention of the learned PP is that since the provisions of law comprised under Section 59 of the Act requires hearing to be given to the concerned party and it also require a show cause notice to be issued before final order being passed besides that concerned authority is empowered to examine the witnesses, it would be the requirement of law that the rules of natural justice are to be complied with, and as such the proceedings would be of quasi judicial nature, and therefore the Order which is passed in such a proceeding would be the one which can be subjected to judicial review before a learned Single Judge. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the explanation clause clearly requires that only the orders passed by any judicial or quasi judicial authority can be challenged before a single Judge, besides that it should be in a proceeding which calls for adjudication of some right under the statute. According to him, in a proceeding under Sections 56 and 57 which is to be conducted in terms of Section 59 of the act, it nowhere requires adjudication of any right under any statute by the authority though broadly speaking it may involve the right to liberty of the party but that would not include adjudication of such right of the concerned party by the concerned authority.