The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of the license to run Kala Kendra. The Court observed that the license could not have been cancelled on the ground of registration of a crime against the petitioner.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner is a proprietor of “Natraj Sanskrutik Kala Kendra”. He was granted a license to run the said Kala Kendra. He filed an application to the District Collector, Nashik for renewal of his license. Pending his application before the District Collector, the petitioner approached the Tahsildar, who in turn renewed the license. The petitioner was served with the show-cause notices as to why his license to run the Kala Kendra shall not be canceled.
According to the petitioner, the District Collector, without taking into consideration the former’s reply to the notices, canceled the license. The petitioner, therefore, preferred an appeal thereagainst to the State of Maharashtra in the Home Department. His appeal too came to be dismissed. Hence, this petition.
The ground on which the license was canceled was the registration of a crime against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 366(b), 368, 372, 373(2)(n), 376(d) read with 34 of the IPC, 1860 and Section 5 & 6 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and under Section 3(1), 4, 8, 16 & 17 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has been acquitted of the case. The said crime was in no way related to Kala Kendra. According to him, Kala Kendra License could only be canceled for breach of the conditions of licence or Rules, 1960. He, therefore, urged for allowing the writ petition in terms of the prayer clause.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order and prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.
Observations of the Court
The Court cited Dilip J. Bhatia vs. The Commissioner of Police, Thane and Another [2001(1) Bom. C. R. 448], in which the Court had observed that a license of an eating house or a lodge cannot be cancelled merely on the ground that the cases under Immoral Traffic (Prevention ) Act, 1956 were pending against them unless the licensee or his agent is convicted of such offences.
The Court observed that the petitioner has been acquitted of the crime registered against him. It is not the case of authorities that the said offence was committed on the premises of Kala Kendra. Since the ground on which the petitioner’s license came to be canceled no longer exists and the license could not have been canceled on the said ground, the orders impugned herein are liable to be set aside.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, allowing the petition, held that if the petitioner files an application for renewal of his license, the District Magistrate would consider it in accordance with the relevant rules in that regard and shall not refuse renewal on the ground, on which the license of the petitioner was revoked vide impugned order.
Case Title: Natraj Sanskrutik Kala Kendra vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice R. G. Avachat
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 1023 OF 2020
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Shrirang Katneshwarka
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. A. R. Patil
Read Judgment
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our
journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments