THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No :16821 of 2006 Date: 24.6.2010 Between:
M/s. Jai Bhavani Restaurant & Bar . PETITIONER AND The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and others.
. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri D. Sudershan Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : A.G.P. for Home The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No :16821 of 2006 ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in interfering with and directing closing down of the business activity of the petitioner’s Bar and Restaurant by 9.00 P.M. as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioner is a Bar and Restaurant located at premises bearing No.13-6-431, Moghal Ka Nala, Hyderabad. The petitioner has claimed that it has got all the requisite licences/permissions/sanctions that are required under law to run the said business. The petitioner further submitted that it has made an application on 17.12.2005 to respondent No.1 for grant of entertainment/establishment licence enclosing all the documents and showing sufficient parking area and that the said application was pending before respondent No.1. The immediate cause for the petitioner for filing the present writ petition was that on 7.8.2006, at 9.00 P.M., respondent Nos. 2 to 4, suddenly visited the petitioner’s premises and directed it to close down its business activities by 9.00 P.M. The petitioner averred that this action is contrary to G.O. Ms. No. 997 , dated 24.5.2005, which permitted the bars to transact their business upto 11.00 P.M. and restaurants to supply food till 12.00 mid night. Aggrieved by the insistence on closing down of the Bar and Restaurant at 9.00 p.m., the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
In the counter affidavit filed by the Joint Commissioner of Police, (Administration), it is inter alia stated that the petitioner has applied for grant of police licence for running a Bar and Restaurant on 12.9.2005 and that on due enquiry, the said application was rejected on 17.12.2005 and that having acknowledged the rejection order, the petitioner made another application on 24.12.2005 for re-consideration of his application for grant of police licence by stating that it has arranged for parking at premises No. 13-6-431/7 with a watchman and furnished a copy of the rental agreement and blue print of the parking area. It is further averred that the issue was referred to D.C.P., Traffic for inspection and report and that the traffic wing after conducting inspection in the presence of the proprietor and mediator, submitted a report to the effect that the Bar and Restaurant is located in a single storied independent building with a total built up area of 670.30 Sq. Mtrs., that exclusive parking space required for establishment of a commercial establishment is 25% of the total built up area and that the petitioner was therefore liable to ear-mark 165.57 Sq.Mtrs., as parking space. It is also averred that as against the said requirement, the petitioner has provided parking area measuring 60.23 Sq. Mtrs., on the Eastern side of the building and shown another vacant house plot comprised in premises No.13-6-431/7 on the Northern/rear side covered with a compound wall and a gate measuring 176.9 Sq. Mtrs., wherein a room exists and after leaving the room space, the available parking in this house plot is 163.32 Sq. Mtrs. It is further stated that as the vacant house plot shown by the petitioner was not suitable for parking as it is located at a distance of 200 metres and in a residential locality, the residents of which have objected to the open plot to be used as open parking place as it creates nuisance in the locality. On this premise, it is sated that the effective parking area of 60.23 Sq. Mtrs., provided by the petitioner is insufficient and that the petitioner’s application was reconsidered and rejected vide Memo No. L&O/A-2/1321/05, dated 6.1.2007 and that the petitioner was informed of the same. The respondents have relied on the provisions of Rule 2 of A.P. Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli and pleaded that as per the said Rule, no person shall be competent to open or establish any public place of halting of first sort without a licence from Commissioner of City Police.
No reply affidavit is filed controverting the above averments contained in the counter affidavit.
While in the writ petition, the petitioner has projected the problem as one pertaining to insistence of police on closing down of the Bar and Restaurant by 9.00 P.M. , a totally different shade of dispute has emerged in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. As noted from the said averments of the counter affidavit, the interference by police with the petitioner’s running of the Bar and Restaurant was on account of the two successive rejection orders passed by the police on the petitioner’s applications for grant of Police Licence for running the Bar and Restaurant.
In view of the specific averments contained in the counter affidavit, which show that the petitioner’s second application was also rejected, no relief as claimed in this writ petition, can be granted.
However, the petitioner is entitled to avail appropriate remedy, available to it in law to question the above mentioned orders passed by the respondents rejecting its applications for grant of Police Licence.
Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 24th June, 2010 pnb