M/S AJAY BHAGWAT & PARTNERS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2017-10-44
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: NAGPUR)
Decided on October 31,2017

M/S Ajay Bhagwat And Partners Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

REVATI MOHITE DERE,J. - (1.) By this petition the petitioner has impugned the order dated 18th March, 2013 (Annex.P-3) passed by the respondent no.2-Additional District Magistrate, Bhandara.
(2.) Mr. M.P.Khajanchi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 18.03.2013 passed by the respondent no.2-Additional District Magistrate, Bhandara is unsustainable in law. According to the learned counsel, the Eating House license registration no.3 of 2004 was cancelled by the Additional District Magistrate, Bhandara, without issuing show cause notice to the petitioner-Firm and without hearing the partners of the petitioner-Firm. He further submitted that during the pendency of this petition, in the interregnum, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhandara vide judgment and order dated 17.11.2014, was pleased to acquit all the accused including the partners of the petitioner-Firm of the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Gambling Act '). He submitted that the petitioner had a valid license to run the Eating House at the relevant time. In support of the said submission, learned counsel relied on the receipt which is on Page 51 of the petition. He submitted that there was absolutely no justification for the Additional District Magistrate, Bhandara, to cancel the Eating House license of the petitioner-firm after the registration of the F.I.R., alleging offences under Sections 4 and 5 of the Gambling Act, as against the partners of the petitioner-firm and others. Learned counsel relied on several judgments i.e., 1996(3) All MR 84 (Kanu Nagu Mhatre Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Police & Others), 2001(1) Bom.C.R. 448 (Dilip J.Bhatia Versus The Commissioner of Police, Thane & Another), 1997 (1) All MR 256 (Girija Timappa Shetty Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Wagle Estate Div., Dist.Thane & Others), (1982) 3 SCC 338 (M/s Raj Restaurant & Another Versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi), to substantiate his submission.
(3.) Mr.Shyam Bissa, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition. He does not dispute the fact, that in the interregnum, during the pendency of this petition, the partners of the petitioner-Firm and all other accused were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 5 of the Gambling Act. He, however submitted, that the petitioner-Firm did not have a valid license to run an eating house, from 2006, much less at the relevant time.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.