1

        REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.4741 OF 2007

Karnataka Live Band Restaurants  Association                      ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of Karnataka & Ors.           …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  final

judgment  and  order  dated  19.04.2007  passed  by

the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ

Appeal No. 556 of 2007 (GM-POLICE) whereby the

High  Court  dismissed  the  appeal  filed  by  the

appellant herein praying for setting aside the order

2

dated 09.02.2007 passed by the Single Judge of the

High Court in Writ Petition No.27523 of 2005.

2) In order to appreciate the controversy involved

in the appeal,  it  is  necessary to set out the facts

infra in detail including the background facts, which

led to filing of this appeal.   

3) The  appellant  is  the  Association  registered

under  the  Karnataka  Societies  Registration  Act,

1960 and Rules framed thereunder. The Association

is formed by the persons, who are engaged in the

business  of  running  the  restaurants  in  various

parts of the city of Bangalore (now Bengaluru).  

4) In addition to serving food items/beverages to

their  customers,  the  owners  of  these  restaurants

also  entertain  their  customers  by  displaying  "Live

Band  Music"  in  their  restaurants.  Indeed,  the

purpose  of  providing  the  facility  of  "Live  Band

Music" is to attract more and more customers in the

restaurants.   In  some  restaurants,  the  “cabaret

3

dance”  and  “discotheque”  are  also  performed  to

attract the customers.

5) The facility of “Live Band Music" and other two

items  in  the  restaurants  gave  a  cause  to  the

dispute, which led to filing of the writ petitions in

the High Court of Karnataka in the year 1989 and

later  in  appeal  to  this  Court  by  the

appellant-Association  and  some  individual

restaurants’ owners against the State. The dispute

arose with the following background.

6) The  Karnataka  Police  Act,  1963  (hereinafter

referred  to  as  “the  Act”),  apart  from dealing  with

several  other  matters  pertaining  to  police

force/administration,  also  deals  with  the  subject

"Police Regulations" in Chapter IV of the Act.     

7) Section  31,  which  falls  in  Chapter  IV,  deals

with power to make, alter or rescind orders issued

for regulation of traffic and for preservation of order

in  public  places.  This  Section  empowers  the

4

Commissioner and the District Magistrate to make

orders, alter or rescind subject to a caveat that it

should  not  be  inconsistent  with  the  provisions  of

the Act.

8) The Commissioner and the District Magistrate

are  empowered  to  regulate  the  traffic  and  to

preserve and control the public places. Section 31

(a)  to  (z)  has  specified  different  areas  for  this

purpose.  It  is,  in  exercise  of  this  power,  the

Commissioner/District  Magistrate  of  Bengaluru

issued an order in the year 1989 called "Licensing

and  Controlling  of  Places  of  Public  Amusements

(Bangalore City)  Order,  1989" (hereinafter  referred

to  as  "the  Order  1989").  The  Commissioner  then

called  upon  the  restaurant  owners,  who  were

displaying "Live Band Music" in their restaurants to

obtain the licences under Order 1989 for running

their restaurants and for displaying the Live Band

Music.

5

9) The restaurants owners felt aggrieved and filed

the writ petitions in the High Court of Karnataka.

According to them, their restaurants wherein they

were displaying "Live Band Music" for entertaining

their customers, was not an activity covered under

Order  1989.  It  was  contended  that  these

restaurants  could  not  be  treated  as  a  place  of

"Public Amusement" as defined under Section 2(14)

of the Act, but at best could be treated as a place of

“Public  Entertainment”  as  defined  under  Section

2(15) of the Act. In other words, the contention of

the writ petitioners was that the applicability of the

Order  1989  was  confined  only  to  the  places  of

"Public Amusement" and since the restaurants were

displaying Live Band Music, their place could not be

termed as the place of public amusement as defined

under Section 2(14) of the Act.  It is for this reason,

the  provisions  of  the  Order  1989  could  not  be

extended to their restaurants.

6

10) It was contended that there lies a distinction

between the activities falling in "Public Amusement"

and  those  falling  in  "Public  Entertainment"  as  is

clear from the two expressions defined in Section 2

(14) and Section 2 (15) of the Act.

11) The  Writ  Court  (Single  Judge)  finding

substance  in  the  writ  petitioners’  aforementioned

contention allowed the writ petitions and quashed

the  order  of  the  Commissioner.  However,  the

Division Bench in an appeal filed by the State set

aside  the  order  of  the  Single  Judge  and  while

allowing  the  State’s  appeal  dismissed  the  writ

petitions. The writ petitioners felt aggrieved and filed

appeals  by  way of  special  leave  before  this  Court

being Civil Appeal Nos. 1857-1858 of 2000.  

12) By  order  dated  28.11.2002  (Annexure  P-3),

this  Court  allowed  the  appeals  and  restored  the

order of the Single Judge. It was held that the writ

petitioners’  premises,  i.e.,  restaurants  displaying

7

Live  Band  Music  is  not  a  place  of  "Public

Amusement"  but  it  is  a  place  of  "Public

Entertainment".  It  was  held  that  the  Order  1989

was, therefore, not applicable to the writ petitioners’

(appellants’) restaurants for regulating the activities

carried  on  therein  as  the  same  fell  outside  the

purview of the Order 1989. The operative part of the

order reads as under:

“In view of the aforesaid conclusion of ours, we  are  of  the  considered  opinion  that  the appellants’  premises  which  is  a  “place  of public entertainment” cannot be held to be also a “place of  public amusement” merely because a live band is  also provided in the place of entertainment where food and drinks are served and consequently the provisions of the Licensing Order will have no application to such premises.  The impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court is set aside  and  these  appeals  are  accordingly allowed.”

13) It is with this factual  background, the Police

Commissioner, Bangalore city was required to issue

the  Order  in  the  year  2005 called  "The  Licensing

and Controlling  of  Places of  Public  Entertainment

(Bangalore City)  Order,  2005" (hereinafter  referred

8

to as “the Order 2005”) under Section 31 of the Act.

It is this order which gave rise to second round of

litigation in the High Court and now in this appeal.  

14) The Order 2005 with which we are concerned

in this appeal was passed by the Commissioner of

Police with a view to regulate the running and the

functioning of the restaurants providing the facility

of  displaying  “Live  Band  Music”,  “cabaret  dance”

and “discotheque” in the restaurants. The details of

the Order 2005 would be mentioned at a later stage

while dealing with the issues.

15) The appellant-Association felt aggrieved by the

Order 2005 filed writ  petitions and challenged its

legality and validity.  The Single  Judge was of  the

view that  since the  Commissioner did not  comply

with the procedure laid down in Section 31 of the

Act before issuing the Order inasmuch as he did not

invite any objections from the public at large, the

Order 2005 is bad in law.  

9

16) The Single Judge, accordingly, disposed of the

writ  petitions  and  directed  the  Commissioner  of

Police to treat the Order 2005 impugned in the writ

petitions  to  be  the  “draft  Order”  and  granted  an

opportunity  to  the  public  at  large  to  file  their

objections as provided in the Act  to the proposed

draft Order 2005 and then to proceed in the case in

accordance with law. The Single Judge further held

that since Live Band Music was not being displayed

for a long period in the restaurants,  no prejudice

would be caused to the restaurants’ owners, if they

do not  display the  Live  Band Music  for  a  further

period  of  two  months.  The  Commissioner  was,

accordingly, directed to decide the objections, if any,

filed  by  the  parties  concerned within  two months

and then to proceed in accordance with law.     

17) Dissatisfied with the order of the Single Judge,

the  appellant-Association  and  many  other

restaurants owners filed intra Court appeal before

10

the Division Bench. The Division Bench dismissed

the appeal. The appellant-Association felt aggrieved

and carried the  matter  in appeal  by special  leave

before this Court.

18) This  Court  by  order  02.12.2005  allowed  the

appeal in part and permitted the appellant members

to run their restaurants with display of Live Band

Music till Rules are framed.  This Court, however,

imposed  three  conditions  on  the  restaurants’

owners. First, the proposed display of entertainment

would not be used to promote the public gambling

or  the  game  house,  it  shall  not  be  used  for

prostitution  and  no  narcotic  substance  will  be

allowed to be consumed in the restaurants.  Second,

the  restaurants  owners  will  not  organize  or  allow

any  performance  or  shows,  which  are  immoral,

obscene or indecent and will ensure that there is no

obscenity  or  indecency  in  dress,  movement  or

gesture  and  will  ensure  that  the  performers  does

11

not expose their person; and third, the restaurant

owners  shall  not  permit  any  obscene  or

objectionable posters or pictures to be exhibited in

their  restaurants.   The owners  of  the  restaurants

also gave the undertaking that they would not allow

these three things to occur in their restaurants.

19) The Commissioner then issued the impugned

Order  2005  on  09.12.2005  (Annexure-P-8)  after

ensuring the compliances as directed. This gave rise

to  filing  of  the  writ  petition  by  the

appellant-Association questioning its constitutional

validity in the High Court of Karnataka.  

20) The  challenge  to  the  Order  2005 was  based

mainly on two grounds. First, the Licensing Order,

2005  violates  Article  14  of  the  Constitution  and

being  discriminatory  in  nature,  is  not  legally

sustainable.  Second,  it  infringes  the  appellant's

fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g)

12

of  the  Constitution  and  hence  ultra  vires the

provisions of the Constitution.     

21) The  Single  Judge  repelled  both  the

aforementioned  submissions  of  the

appellant-Association  and  by  order  dated

09.02.2007 dismissed the appellant's writ petition.

As  a  consequence  thereof,  the  Order  2005  was

upheld.

22) The appellant felt aggrieved and filed the writ

appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.

The Division Bench concurred with the  reasoning

and  conclusion  of  the  Single  Judge  and,  by

impugned judgment, dismissed the appeal.  

23) The writ petitioners felt aggrieved and filed the

present appeal by way of special leave in this Court.

This is how the issue has reached to this Court to

examine the  legality  and correctness of  the  Order

2005 issued by the Commissioner under Section 31

of the Act.

13

24) Heard Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned counsel for the

appellant  and  Mr.  V.N.  Raghupathy,  learned

counsel for the respondents.

25) Learned  Counsel  for  the  appellant  (writ

petitioner/restaurant  owners’  Association)  while

assailing  the  legality  and  correctness  of  the

reasoning and the conclusion of  the Single Judge

(writ Court) and the Division Bench, reiterated the

same  submissions,  which  were  unsuccessfully

urged by the appellant before the two Courts below.  

26) Elaborating his submissions, learned counsel

contended that the activity of displaying Live Band

Music  in  the  restaurants  with  which  we  are

concerned  in  this  appeal  is  not  an  activity  of  a

nature,  which  can  be  brought  within  the  four

corners of Section 31 of the Act so as to regulate its

functioning by the impugned Order 2005.  

27) In other words, the submission was that it is

not necessary for the appellant to take licence for

14

displaying the Live Band Music in their restaurants

and  such  activity  can  be  performed  in  the

restaurants  even  without  the  licence  under  the

Order 2005, as was being done by them till 2005.

28) His  submission  was  that  insistence  of  the

Commissioner of Police on the restaurant owners to

obtain the licence under Clause 3 of the Order 2005

violates the principle of equality enshrined in Article

14  of  the  Constitution,  as  also  it  infringes  their

fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(g)

of the Constitution to practice any profession, or to

carry on any occupation, trade or business.

29) Learned  counsel  urged  that  the  conditions

specified in the Order 2005 to obtain the licence are

unworkable, unreasonable and harsh and thus are

incapable of being implemented.   The conditions,

according  to  the  learned  counsel,  also  creates  a

discrimination  between  the  two  alike  restaurants

without any reasonable classification as it requires

15

one  restaurant  owner  to  obtain  the  licence  and

exclude  other  similar  restaurant  owners  from

obtaining the licence.

30) Learned  counsel  urged  that  since  the

restrictions imposed on the appellant while running

the  restaurants  are  found  unworkable  or/and

unreasonable,  it  amounts  to  infringement  of  their

fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g)

of the Constitution.

31) Learned  counsel  then  elaborated  the

aforementioned submissions by referring to various

clauses of the Order 2005 with a view to show their

unreasonableness and harshness in implementation

and contended that the Order 2005 deserves to be

quashed as being unconstitutional.

32) Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  filed  a

compilation  of  the  cases  in  support  of  his

contentions.  These decisions are Bijoe Emmanuel

& Ors. vs. State of Kerala & Ors.  (1986) 3 SCC

16

615,  Secretary,  Ministry  of  Information  &

Broadcasting,  Govt.of  India  &  Ors.  vs.  Cricket

Association of Bengal & Ors.  (1995) 2 SCC 161,

Tata Press Ltd. vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam

Ltd., (1995) 5 SCC 139, Mrs. Usha Uthup vs. State

of West Bengal & Ors.,  AIR 1984 Cal.268,  Sakal

Papers  (Pvt.)  Ltd.  vs.  U.O.I.,  AIR  1962  SC  305,

Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. &

Ors. vs. U.O.I. & Ors.  (1985) 1 SCC 641,  Express

Newspaper(P)  Ltd. & Anr. Vs.  U.O.I.  & Ors.  AIR

1958 SC 578,  Life Insurance Corpn. of India vs.

Manubhai  D.  Shah,  (1992)  3  SCC  637,  R.

Rajagopal @ R.R. Gopal & Anr. Vs. State of T.N. &

Ors.,  (1994) 6 SCC 632,  K.A. Abbas vs. U.O.I.  &

Anr. (1970) 2 SCC 780,  Mohd. Faruk vs. State of

M.P. & Ors.  (1969)  1  SCC 853,  Dharam Dutt &

Ors. vs. U.O.I. & Ors.  (2004) 1 SCC 712,  Cellular

Operators Asson. Of India & Ors. vs. TRAI & Ors.

(2016)  7  SCC  703,  M/s  Dwarka  Prasad  Laxmi

17

Narain vs. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1954 SC 224,

State of Maharashtra  & Anr. vs. Indian Hotel &

Restaurants  Asson. & Ors.   (2013)  8  SCC  519,

People’s  Union  for  Civil  Liberties  &  Anr.  vs.

U.O.I. & Anr. (2013) 10 SCC 1, Raja Video Parlour

& Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.  (1993) 3 SCC

708,  M/s  Noorulla  Ghazanfarulla  vs.  Municipal

Board of Aligarh & Ors. (1982) 1 SCC 484, Andhra

Industrial  Works,  A.P.  vs.  Chief  Controller  of

Imports  &  Ors.,  AIR  1974  SC  1539,  Dr.  Ram

Manohar  Lohia  vs.  State  of  Bihar   & Anr.  AIR

1966 SC 740, Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd.

etc.  vs.  U.O.I.  Etc.,  (1983)  4  SCC  166,  Illachi

Devi(D)  by  L.Rs.  &  Ors.  vs.  Jain  Society,

Protection of Orphans India & Ors., (2003) 8 SCC

413, M.J. Sivani & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka &

Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 289, Indulal K. Yagnik v. State

& Ors. AIR 1963 Guj. 259 and  Saia vs. People of

State of New York, 334 US 558 (1948).  

18

33) In  reply,  learned  counsel  for  the  respondent

(State)  supported  the  reasoning  and  conclusion

arrived  at  in  impugned  judgment  and  contended

that the appeal has no merit.

34) Before  we  proceed  to  examine  the  various

submissions urged by the learned counsel  for the

parties,  it  is  apposite  to take note  of  the relevant

provisions  of  the  Act  and  the  Order  2005,  which

have a bearing over the controversy.

35) Section 2 (14) of the Act defines the expression

"Place of Public Amusement" whereas Section 2(15)

defines  the  expression  "Place  of  Public

Entertainment".   As mentioned above, Section 31

gives power to the Commissioner of the Police and

the District Magistrate to make orders for regulation

of  traffic  and  for  preservation  of  order  in  public

places  etc.  Clause  (w)  of  Section  31  deals  with

licensing or controlling places of public amusement

or  entertainment  whereas  clause  (x)  deals  with

19

licensing or controlling with such exceptions as may

be  specified,  the  musical,  dancing,  mimetic  or

theatrical  or  other  performances  for  public

amusement including melas and tamashas.

36) Clause  2  of  the  Order  2005  defines  certain

expressions  such  as  "Cabaret",  "Discotheque",

"Educational  Institution",  "Live  Band",  "Religious

Institution".  Clause  3  deals  with  obtaining  of  the

licence.  Clause  4  deals  with  the  application  for

licence.  Clause  5  gives  power  to  the  licensing

authority  to  make  inspection  of  the  premises.

Clause  7  deals  with  grant  or  refusal  of  licence.

Clause 8 deals with the seating arrangements in the

premises  in  question.  Clause  9  deals  with  Notice

Board.  Clause  10  deals  with  renewal  of  licence.

Clause 11 deals with termination of licence. Clause

12 deals  with  prohibition  of  change  of  the  name.

Clause 13 deals with power to stop music. Clause

14 deals with suspension of licence. Clause 15 deals

20

with procedure for cancellation of licence. Clause 16

deals with inspection of licenced premises. Clause

17 deals with notice to the licensing authority and

clause 18 deals with licence fees.  

37) Relevant Sections of the Act and the clauses of

the Order 2005 need reproduction in verbatim infra.

Section 2(14) of the Act

“(14) "place of public amusement" means any place, where music, singing, dancing, or any diversion, or game, or the means of carrying on  the  same is  provided  and to  which  the public  are  admitted  and  includes  a  race course,  circus,  theatre,  music  hall,  billiard room,  bagatelle  room,  gymnasium,  fencing school, swimming pool or dancing hall;

Section 2(15)

(15)  "place  of  public  entertainment"  means any place to which the public are admitted and  where  any  kind  of  food  or  drink  is supplied for consumption in the premises by any person owning or having an interest in or managing  such  place  and  includes  a refreshment  room,  eating  house,  coffee house, liquor house, boarding house, lodging house, hotel,  tavern, or a shop where wine, beer,  spirit,  arrack,  toddy,  ganja,  or  other kind of  liquor  or  intoxicant  or  any kind of food  or  drink  is  supplied  to  the  public  for consumption in or near such shop;”

21

Section 31  

Section  31  -  Power  to  make  orders  for regulation of  traffic  and for  preservation of order  in  public  places,  etc.  (1)  The Commissioner and the District Magistrate, in areas under their respective charges or any part  thereof,  may  make,  alter  or  rescind orders not inconsistent with this Act, for,--

Clause (w)

(w) (i) licensing or controlling places of public amusement or entertainment;

(ii) prohibiting the keeping of places of public amusement or entertainment or assembly, in order to prevent obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance,  risk,  danger  or  damage  to  the residents or passengers in the vicinity;

(iii) regulating the means of entrance and exit at  places  of  public  amusement  or entertainment or assembly and providing for the  maintenance  of  public  safety  and  the prevention of disturbance thereat;

Clause (x)

(x)  (i)  licensing  or  controlling  with  such exceptions as may be specified, the musical, dancing,  mimetic,  or  theatrical  or  other performances  for  public  amusement, including melas and tamashas;

(ii) regulating in the interest of public order, decency  or  morality  or  in  the  interest  of general  public,  the  employment  of  artists, and  the  conduct  of  the  artists  and  the audience at such performances;

(iii) prior scrutiny of such performance by a Board appointed by the Government or by an Advisory  Committee  appointed  by  the Commissioner  or  the  District  Magistrate  in this behalf;

22

(iv) regulating the hours during which and the places  at  which  such performances  may be given;”

Clause 2 of Order 2005

2. Definitions:

b) ‘Cabaret’ means a form of dance  performed in a place of public entertainment  by dancers or artists or any other person as a part of musical entertainment;

d) ‘Discotheque’ means a facility provided at  a  place  of  public  entertainment  to customers or patrons for singing or dancing of whatever form or both;

j) ‘Live  band’  means  music,  live  or recorded,  provided  at  a  place  of  public entertainment, whether or not accompanied by any form of dancing including cabaret.

Clause 3  

3.  Obligation to obtain a Licence:-  No person shall  open  or  maintain  a  place  of  public entertainment  like  live  band,  cabaret, discotheque  without  obtaining  a  licence under the provisions of this Order from the Licensing Authority:

Providing that no such licence shall be necessary for places of public entertainment like refreshment room, eating house, coffee house, boarding house, lodging house, hotel, tavern  or  shop  where  wine,  beer,  spirit, arrack or any other kind of liquor, intoxicant or any kind of food or drink is supplied to the public for consumption on the basis of a valid licence  obtained  under  the  relevant provisions  applicable  for  establishing  and maintaining  such  places  of  public entertainment  and  also  supplying  the abovementioned things or services and where live  band,  cabaret  or  discotheque  or  any

23

other  activity  of  a  similar  nature  is  not performed:

Provided  further  that  no such  licence shall  also  be  necessary  to  conduct Yakshagana,  bayalata  (field  drama), Bharathanatyam,  Folk  Art,  music  recital, vocal  or  instrumental  like  Veena,  Mrudana etc.

Clause 4  

4.  Application for Licence: (1) Every person applying for a licence to maintain a place of public  entertainment  shall  make  an application  in  form  No.1  along  with  the documents  specified  therein  and  his  three recent photographs.

(2)  An application can be obtained from the Licensing  Authority  on  payment  of  the specified fee under clause 18 of this Order.

(3)   While  submitting  the  application,  the applicant  shall  appear  in  person before  the Designated Authority and satisfy him that all the  required  information  and  documents have  been  furnished  along  with  the application.

Clause 5

5. Inspection of the premises- The Licensing Authority  or  any  officer  not  below  the rank  of  Inspector  of  Police,  as  may  be authorized  by  the  Licensing  Authority may for the purpose of granting licence, if necessary, hold an inspection of the site or premises.  The Licensing Authority or the Officer so authorized may, if need be, seek assistance of any other authority or authorities during such inspection.

24

Clause 7

7.   Grant  or  refusal  of  Licence:  (1)  The Licensing  Authority  shall  while  deciding  to grant  or  refuse  a  licence  under  this  Order have regard to the following aspects, namely:

(a)  the interest of public in general;

(b)  the  status  and  antecedents  of  the applicant;

(c)  availability  of  parking  place commensurate with the seating capacity;

(d)  the possible adverse impact on law and order;

(e)   vicinity  of  the  place  to  educational  or religious  institutions.   For  this  purpose vicinity  shall  mean  within  a  distance  of 200(two hundred) metres;

(f)   that the entertainment does not in any way incite religious feelings;

(g)  that the materials used for the structure do not pose any kind of fire hazard;

(h)  that the proposed entertainment does not promote  public  gambling  or  the  premises shall not be used a gaming house or does not encourage  prostitution  or  allow  the  use  of narcotic  substances  or  permit  any  other illegal activity;

(i)   that  the  licensee  shall  not  organize  or allow  performance  of  shows  which  are immoral,  obscene  or  indecent  and  ensure that  there  is  no  obscenity  or  indecency  in dress,  movement  or  gesture  or  that  the performers indecently expose their person;

(j)  the licensee shall not permit any obscene or  objectionable  posters  or  pictures  to  be exhibited;

25

(k)  that the proposed premises do not cause obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger  or  damage  to  the  residents  or  to passerby of such premises;

(l)   that all  adequate precautions have been taken in the premises in respect of which the licence  is  to  be  granted  to  provide  for  the safety,  convenience  and  comfort  of  the persons attending the programmes therein.

(2) The  Licensing  Authority  on  being satisfied and subject to the provisions of this Order, may grant a licence to the applicant in Form-II  on  such terms and conditions,  and for such period subject to such restrictions as the Licensing Authority may determine.  No licence  shall  be  granted  for  a  period exceeding  one  year.   A  licence  can  be renewed for a period not exceeding one year at a time:

Provided  that  where  the  Licensing Authority refused to grant licence, it shall do so for reasons to be recorded in writing and that  order  shall  be  communicated  to  the applicant:

Provided further that the licensee may conduct  any  show  or  public  entertainment only  between  10.00  hrs.  and  23.30  hrs. However,  the  licensing  authority  at  his discretion  may permit  conducting  of  shows or public entertainment beyond 23.30 hrs. on special  occasions  not  exceeding  three  such occasions in a year for each licence.

Provided  further  that  additional conditions may be imposed by the Licensing Authority  during  the  period  of  Licence  for reasons  to  be  recorded  in  writing  and communicate the same to the licensee.

26

Clause 8

8. Seating arrangements:-

(1)  The licensee shall not accommodate more than twenty persons per nine square meters in the place of public entertainment:

Provided  that  the  entrance,  passage, corridor,  gangway  and  stage  shall  be deducted for the purpose of  calculating the seating accommodation.

(2) There shall be an open space of not less than five feet wide on any two sides of the premises where live  band or  discotheque is performed.

(3) There shall be at least one emergency exit in addition to the normal doorway fitted with doors which open outwards.

(4) There  shall  be  openings  sufficiently wide  enough  to  ensure  good  ventilation  or there shall be provision for sufficient good air condition.

(5) One  W.C.  and  one  urinal  separate  for men and women each for every fifty persons or less shall be provided.

(6) Any live  band performance within the licensed  premises  for  conducting  live  band shall be conducted on a stage which shall be properly  demarcated  from the  seating area. There  shall  be  no  inter-mingling  of performers with customers/guests on or off the stage.   There  shall  be  a  distance of  at least five feet between the stage and first row of seating area.

Clause 9

9.  Notice Board:-  (1)  Every licensee shall affix  or  cause  to  be  affixed  at  some conspicuous  place  at  the  place  of  Public

27

Entertainment  a  board  of  suitable  size  on which  shall  be  written  in  Kannada  and English, the name and address of the licensee and the period of licence.

(2)   He  shall  also  specify  the  seating capacity/maximum capacity of the premises conducting live band, Cabaret,  Discotheque, as the case may be.

(3)  He shall also exhibit at a prominent place in the premises a photo copy of the licence.

Clause 10

10.   Renewal  of  Licence:-  (1)   Every application for renewal of the licence granted under this Order shall be made at least thirty days before the day on which such licence is to  expire.   The  application  shall  be accompanied  by  the  licence  to  be  renewed and the amount of fee as specified in clause 18.

(2)   Where  an  application  is  made  in accordance  with  sub-clause(1),  the  earlier licence shall be deemed to be in force till the renewal  or  refusal  of  such  licence  is communicated to the applicant.

(3)  Application for renewal of a licence, not made  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of this clause, shall be liable to be rejected by the licensing authority.

Clause 11

11.  Licence shall terminate with the transfer of  business:-   A  licence  granted  under  this Order  for  maintaining  a  place  of  public entertainment  shall  not  be  transferable  or assignable to any other person.  Where such person  transfers  or  assigns  his  business  to any other person or enters into an agreement with another person, involving his giving up of the conduct or control over the business,

28

the  licence  granted  to  him  shall  stand terminated  on  and  from  the  date  of  such transaction:

Provided that  in  the case  of  death of the licensee, his heir or legal representatives may make an application within one month from  the  date  of  death  to  the  Licensing Authority seeking continuance of the licence for the un-expired term of the licence.  No fee shall  be  charged  for  such  continuance  of licence.

Clause 12

12.   Prohibition  of  change  of  name:-  A licensee  shall  not  make  any change  in  the name  of  the  establishment  or  use  his premises or allow any other person to use the premises for the purpose of any other type of entertainment  which  he  is  not  authorized under the licence.

Clause 13

13.  Power to stop music:  Without prejudice to the conditions specified in the licence, the Licensing  Authority  may,  by  a  general  or special order made in this behalf, direct that no  music  shall  be  played  or  allowed  to  be played during such time as he may direct.

Clause 14

14.   Suspension  of  licence:  If  any  person maintaining a place of public entertainment permits  prostitution  or  permits  persons  to meet or remain in such place for the purpose of planning or carrying out an illegal actitity or  violates  any  of  the  conditions  of  this order, the licensing authority shall have the discretion  to  suspend  the  licence  for  such period as he may think fit  and direct such person to close the place for such period as he may specify.  The person to whom such direction is issued by the licensing authority

29

shall comply with such direction.  However, the period of suspension shall not exceed 30 days at a time.

Clause 15

15.   Procedure  for  cancellation  of  Licence: No licence granted under this Order shall be cancelled until the holder of the licence has been  given  a  reasonable  opportunity  of showing cause why his licence should not be cancelled.

Clause 16

16.  Inspection of Licensed Premises:  Every person  maintaining  a  place  of  public entertainment  shall,  at  all  times allow free access  to  such  place  to  the  Licensing Authority or any police officer not below the rank of a Police Inspector having jurisdiction over the area or authorized by the Licensing Authority  to  hold  inspection  as  deemed necessary  to  ensure  and  satisfy  that  the Licensee has complied with the provisions of this Order.

Clause 17

17.  Notice to the Licensing Authority:  Every person shall, as soon as he voluntarily closes the place of public entertainment in respect of  which  a  licence  has  been granted  under this Order, shall intimate such closure to the Licensing Authority.

Clause 18

18.  Fee:-  Licensing Fee for every licence per annum, shall be as below:

(i) Fresh Licence - Rs.20,000/-

(ii) Renewal - Rs.5,000/-

30

(iii) Application form fee Rs.500/-”

38) There are two Latin legal maxims, which need

to  be  kept  in  mind  while  deciding  the  questions

arising  in  this  appeal.  One  is  “Salus  Populi

Supremo Lex” which means the safety of the people

is  the  supreme  law  and  the  other  is  "Salus

republicae supremo lex" which means safety of the

State is the supreme law.           

39) In our considered view, it  is  the prime duty,

rather  statutory  duty,  of  the  Police

personal/administration of every State to maintain

and give precedence to the safety and the morality

of  the  people  and  the  State.  Indeed,  both  are

important and lie at the heart of the doctrine that

the welfare of an individual must yield to that of the

community.  The  Act  and  the  Order  2005  are

enacted keeping in view the safety and the morality

of the people at large.  

31

40) In our view, whenever the impugned action is

challenged  on  the  touchstone  of  Articles  14  and

19(1)(g) of the Constitution, we have to keep in mind

the well-settled principle of  law laid down by this

Court wherein this Court has examined lucidly and

succinctly the scope and ambit of Articles 14 and

19(1)(g) .

41) So far as Article 14 is concerned, it is useful to

refer to the law laid down in two decisions of this

Court reported in  Budhan Choudhry vs. State of

Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191 and Ram Krishna Dalmia

& Ors.  vs.  S.R.  Tendulkar  & Ors.  AIR 1958 SC

538.

42) In the case of  Budhan Choudhry (supra), the

Constitution Bench of  seven Judges of  this Court

explained the true meaning and scope of Article 14

as follows:  

“5. … It is now well established that while Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid  reasonable  classification  for  the purposes of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification two

32

conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the  classification  must  be  founded  on  an intelligible  differentia  which  distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and (ii) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The classification may be founded  on  different  bases;  namely, geographical,  or  according  to  objects  or occupations or the like. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of  classification  and  the  object  of  the  Act under  consideration.  It  is  also  well established  by  the  decisions  of  this  Court that Article 14 condemns discrimination not only by a substantive law but also by a law of procedure.”

43) In  Ram Krishna Dalmia (supra),  this  Court

reiterated the principles which would help in testing

the legislation on the touchstone of Article 14 in the

following words:  

“(a)  that  a  law  may  be  constitutional  even though it relates to a single individual if, on account  of  some  special  circumstances  or reasons applicable to him and not applicable to  others,  that  single  individual  may  be treated as a class by himself; (b)  that  there  is  always  a  presumption  in favour  of  the  constitutionality  of  an enactment and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of the constitutional principles; (c)  that  it  must  be  presumed  that  the legislature  understands  and  correctly appreciates the need of its own people, that its  laws  are  directed  to  problems  made manifest  by  experience  and  that  its

33

discriminations  are  based  on  adequate grounds; (d)  that  the  legislature  is  free  to  recognise degrees  of  harm  and  may  confine  its restrictions to those cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest; (e) that in order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality the Court may take into consideration matters of common knowledge, matters of common report, the history of the times and may assume every state  of  facts which can be conceived existing at the time of legislation; and (f)  that while good faith and knowledge of the  existing  conditions  on  the  part  of  the legislature  are  to  be  presumed,  if  there  is nothing  on  the  face  of  the  law  or  the surrounding  circumstances  brought  to  the notice  of  the  court  on  which  the classification  may  reasonably  be  regarded as  based,  the  presumption  of constitutionality  cannot  be  carried  to  the extent of always holding that there must be some undisclosed and unknown reasons for subjecting  certain  individuals  or corporations  to  hostile  or  discriminating legislation.”

(emphasis supplied)

44) These principles were reiterated by this Court

in  Shashikant Laxman Kale & Anr. vs. Union of

India & Anr. (1990)  4  SCC 366 and  in  a  recent

decision of this Court in  State of Maharashtra &

Anr. vs. Indian Hotel & Restaurants Association

& Ors. (2013) 8 SCC 519.    

34

45) Similarly,  so  far  as  Article  19(1)(g)  of  the

Constitution  is  concerned,  this  Article  accords

fundamental  rights  to  carry  on  any  profession,

occupation,  trade  or  business.  However,  the  right

guaranteed  under  clause  (g)  is  made  subject  to

imposition of appropriate reasonable restrictions by

the  State  in  the  interest  of  general  public  under

clause (6).  

46) As and when the question arises as to whether

a particular restriction imposed by law under clause

(6) is reasonable or not, such question is left for the

Court  to  decide.   The  test  of  reasonableness  is

required to be viewed in the context of the issues,

which  faced  the  impugned  legislature.  In

construction of  such laws and while judging their

validity, the Court has to approach the issue from

the point of furthering the social interest, moral and

material  progress  of  the  community  as  a  whole.

Likewise, while examining such question, the Court

35

cannot  proceed  on  a  general  notion  of  what  is

reasonable in its abstract form nor the Court can

proceed to decide such question from the point of

view  of  the  person  on  whom  such  restriction  is

imposed. What is, therefore, required to be decided

in such case is whether the restrictions imposed are

reasonable in the interest of general public or not.

47) This  Court  has  laid  down  the  test  of

reasonableness in the case of  State of Madras  vs.

VG Row, AIR 1952 SC 196 and very succinctly said

that it is important, in this context, to bear in mind

that  the  test  of  reasonableness,  wherever

prescribed,  should  be  applied  to  each  individual

statute  impugned  and  no  abstract  standard  or

general pattern of reasonableness can be laid down

as applicable to all  cases. The nature of  the right

alleged  to  have  been  infringed,  the  underlying

purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent and

urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby,

36

the disproportion of  the imposition,  the prevailing

conditions  at  the  time,  should  all  enter  into  the

judicial mind.

48) This  Court  has  further  ruled  that  the

expression  "in  the  interest  of  general  public"

occurring  in  clause  (6)  is  an  expression  of  wide

import which comprehends in it public order, public

health, public security, morals, economic welfare of

the community and lastly objects mentioned in Part

IV of the Constitution. (See Municipal Corporation

of  the  City  of  Ahmedabad  &  Ors.  vs.  Jan

Mohammed Usmanbhai & Anr., (1986) 3 SCC 20

and Deepak Theatre, Dhuri vs. State of Punjab &

Ors., 1992 Supp(1) SCC 684).

49) This Court has also ruled, as mentioned above,

that the State has a right to regulate running of any

business  by  putting  reasonable  restrictions  under

clause (6) in the interest of general public.  It was

held in the case of  Minerva Talkies, Bangalore &

37

Ors.  vs.  State of  Karnataka & Ors.  1988 Supp.

SCC 176 that the right to carry on the business of

exhibiting cinematograph films,  which is  governed

by the provisions of Karnataka Cinemas Regulation

Act and the Rules framed thereunder, is subjected

to the rigor of reasonable restrictions and the State

Government  has  a  power  to  limit/restrict  the

exhibiting number of shows in the Talkies in a day.

It  was held that such provisions are necessary to

ensure  public  safety,  health  and  other  allied

matters. It was held that imposing such restriction

is  essentially  regulatory  in  nature  and serves  the

purpose of the Act.   

50) After taking note of the general principle of law

governing the field, which we have to keep in mind,

we have to examine the question as to whether the

Order 2005, impugned in the appeal,  has created

any discrimination or whether the Order 2005 is in

any  way  unreasonable  or  arbitrary  and  lastly,

38

whether it violates the appellant's fundamental right

guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(g).  

51) Having examined the questions in the light of

aforementioned general principles of law, we are of

the  considered  opinion that  the  Order  2005 does

not suffer from any legal infirmity and is therefore

constitutional.  This  we  say  for  more  than  one

reason as detailed infra.  

52) First, Section 31 is a valid piece of legislation.

Its  constitutionality  is  not  questioned.  Second,

clauses  (w)  and  (x)  of  Section  31  empowers  the

Commissioner of Police to issue Order in respect of

the matters specified therein. Third, it is in exercise

of this statutory power, the Commissioner of Police,

Bangalore has issued the Order 2005 to regulate,

control  and  supervise  the  activities  specified  in

clause(w) and (x). Fourth, in the light of these three

reasons, no fault can be found so far as the source

39

of power of the Commissioner of Police to issue the

Order 2005 is concerned.  

53) Fifth, the Order 2005 has been issued to deal

with  three  activities,  which  are  covered  by  the

expression  “Public  Entertainment"  as  defined  in

Section  2(15)  of  the  Act.   In  other  words,  the

appellant's  business  activity,  viz.,  running  of  the

restaurants and display of Live Band and two others

fall under the expression "Public Entertainment".   

54) Sixth,  in  the  light  of  aforementioned

reasonings,  Cabaret,  Discotheque  or  Live  Band

Music  are  rightly  subjected  to  the  rigor  of  Order

2005.  Indeed, the Order 2005 has been issued only

with a view to control,  regulate and supervise the

three performances in the restaurants.  Since these

performances are displayed in a restaurant where

public has an access and, therefore, in the larger

public  interest,  these  performances  have  to  be

controlled,  regulated  and  supervised  by  imposing

40

reasonable  restrictions  in  law under  clause  (6)  of

Article 19.   

55) Seventh, making it obligatory to obtain licence

under Clause 3 to display Cabaret, Discotheque or

Live  Band  is  a  reasonable  restriction  on  the

appellant's  fundamental  right  to  carry  on  the

business of running the restaurants.  

56) Indeed, controlling of any business by asking

its owner to obtain licence to do such business is

held  to  be  a  reasonable  restriction  on  citizen's

fundamental  right  under  article  19(1)(g)  read with

clause (6) and we do not find any illegality in such

regulation.    

57) Eighth, conditions specified in Sub-clauses (a)

to  (l)  of  Clause  7,  Clause  8  and  Clause  9  of  the

Order 2005 are well conceived conditions in public

interest. These conditions ensure the safety and the

welfare  of  the  general  Public  who  regularly  visits

41

such restaurants to take food and witness the live

performances of the artists in the restaurants.  

58) Indeed,  if  these  safety  measures  are  not

adhered to by the owners of the restaurants while

running their restaurants, the general public would

always have a risk of subjecting themselves to the

happening  of  any  untoward  incident  endangering

their life and safety.

59) At this stage, it is also necessary to take note

of  various  compliances,  which  are  required  to  be

made by the Licensee to run their restaurants.  

60) Sub-clause  (a)  of  Clause  7  deals  with  the

interest of public in general. Clause (b) deals with

the  status  and  antecedents  of  the  applicant  who

applies for running the restaurant. Clause (c) deals

with  availability  of  parking  place  commensurate

with  the  seating  capacity.  Clause  (d)  deals  with

possible adverse impact on law and order. Clause (e)

deals  with  vicinity  of  the  place  (restaurants)  to

42

educational  or  religious  institutions,  i.e.,  200

meters.  Clause  (f)  provides  that  entertainment

displayed  should  not  in  any  way  incite  religious

feelings  of  any  particular  community.   Clause  (g)

provides that the material used for the structure in

running the restaurants should not pose any kind

of fire hazard. Clause (h) provides that the proposed

entertainment should not promote public gambling

nor the premises be used as a gaming house nor

any attempt be  made to  encourage  a  prostitution

nor the premises be allowed to be used for sale or

consumption of narcotic substance nor the licensee

is permitted to carry on any kind of illegal activities

in  the  premises.  Clause  (i)  provides  that  licensee

shall  not  organize  or  allow  performance  of  shows

which  are  immoral,  obscene  or  indecent  and  will

ensure that  there is  no obscenity or  indecency in

dress, movement or gesture or/and the performers

does not indulge in any kind of indecency and in

43

exposing  their  person.  Clause  (j)  provides  that

licensee  shall  not  permit  any  obscene  or

objectionable posters or pictures to be exhibited in

the premises. Clause (k) provides that the proposed

premises do not cause obstruction, inconvenience,

annoyance, risk, danger or damage to the residents

or to passers by of such premises  and lastly clause

(l)  provides  that  it  must  be  ensured  that  all  the

aforementioned precautions have been taken in the

premises in respect of which licence is to be granted

to provide for the safety, to avoid any inconvenience

likely to cause to public and to ensure full comfort

to the persons attending the programs displayed in

the restaurants.

61) So far as Clause 8 is concerned, it is important

as  it  deals  with  seating  arrangements  in  the

restaurants.   It  sets  out  six  parameters  in

sub-clauses  (1)  to  (6)  to  control  the  sitting

arrangements in the restaurants.  It also provides

44

that  every  restaurant  shall  have  at  least  one

emergency exit in addition to normal doorway fitted

with  doors  which  open  outward  in  the  event  of

occurrence of any fire hazard.  Similarly, Clause 9

provides  that  how  the  Notice  Board  would  be

displayed and what will be its contents.

62) In  our  considered  opinion,  the  conditions

specified in Clauses 7, 8 & 9 directly deal with the

public  safety,  comforts,  convenience,  morality  and

law and order and we have not been able to find any

kind of unreasonableness or arbitrariness in any of

the abovementioned clauses so as to hold that they

are unworkable for running the restaurant and to

display the three performances.  

63) In our view, those who find themselves unable

to  ensure  compliances  of  these  conditions  or  feel

that it is not possible for them to comply, may not

display the performances in their restaurants.  

45

64) As held above, the public interest, the welfare

and the safety of general public always override the

right of an individual.  There is no prohibition for

any individual to carry on such business.  However,

if he wishes to carry on such business, he has to

follow  the  norms  and  the  statutory  regulation

framed for carrying on the business.  He cannot be

heard to say that he will carry on the business but

without  ensuring  the  norms  and  the  regulations

framed for the purpose.

65) In our opinion, here comes the application of

the two maxims quoted supra while determining the

rights of an individual qua public and the State.

66) Indeed,  we  can  take  judicial  notice  of  an

incident occurred in recent past in a restaurant in

Mumbai where life of several innocent people sitting

in  the  restaurants  were  lost  due  to  lapses  in

ensuring  compliance  of  safety  measures.   Yet

another incident of the similar nature occurred few

46

years  before  in  Upahar  Theater  in  Delhi  where

several  innocent  people  lost  their  life  due  to

non-observance of safety measures.  

67) When  such  incidents  occur,  they  never

obliterate from the memories of the citizen and leave

a  message  to  all  the  stakeholders  that  steps  for

strict compliance must be taken to avoid any such

recurrence in future at any place.  We hope that all

the stakeholders will keep our observations in mind.

68) Ninth, all the measures set out in Clauses 7, 8

and 9 need to be complied with in letter and spirit

by  every  restaurant  owner  before  obtaining  the

licence and that they must continue to observe its

compliances  during  currency  of  the  licence  on

regular basis for the benefit, safety and the welfare

of the customers and the residents of the area.  

69) Tenth, the Order 2005 has rightly provided a

check on the powers of  the licensing authority in

granting or refusing the licence in as much as the

47

licensing authority is now required to give reasons

for rejecting the licence.  

70) Such  rejection  can  always  be  made  subject

matter  of  challenge  in  the  Court  of  law  by  an

aggrieved. A provision of this nature eliminates any

kind  of  arbitrariness  on  the  part  of  licensing

authority while considering the grant or rejection of

the licence under Order 2005.

71) This takes us to examine another question as

to  whether  any  case  of  arbitrariness  or/and

discrimination in issuing Order 2005 as urged by

the appellant is made out.

72) We are,  however,  unable  to  find any case of

arbitrariness  or  discrimination  having  been  made

out  by the  appellant  so as  to  attract  the  rigor  of

Article 14 of the Constitution.  

73) Indeed,  the  Order  2005 does  not  create  any

discrimination  between  the  two  alike.  The

restaurants  which  are  engaged  in  displaying  the

48

three performances specified in Clause 2 (b), (d) and

(j)  of the Order 2005 are under legal obligation to

take licence under Clause 3.

74) Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant,  however,

pointed out the proviso to Clause 3 that it is this

proviso which creates a discrimination inasmuch as

there does not appear to be any justifiable reason to

exclude  those  restaurants  from  obtaining  the

licence which are conducting Yakshagana, Bayalata

(field  drama)  or  Bharat  Natyam,  folk  Art,  Music

recital, vocal or instrumental like Veena or Mrudana

etc.

75) We do not find any merit in this submission

though look attractive at its first blush. First, it is

for  the  Police  Commissioner  to  decide  in  its

discretion having regard to the totality of entire fact

situation as to what should be brought within the

ambit of the Order 2005 and what should be left out

from its clutches. Second, there appears reasonable

49

distinction between the two performances because

as  rightly  urged  by  the  respondent,  the

performances  specified  in  the  proviso,  are  not

usually performed in restaurants but are performed

in  theaters  or/and  auditoriums  as  one  time

performance  by  the  artists  whereas  the  three

performing  items  namely  -  Cabaret,  Discotheque

and Live  Band Music  are  the  activities  which are

regularly  performed  and  attract  more  crowd  and

lastly  the  items  specified  in  proviso  even  if

performed in restaurants does not involve any kind

of  indecency  or  obscenity  whereas  other  three

performances may unless controlled.  In our view,

proviso seems more clarificatory in nature.

76) In any case, in our view, if the Commissioner

finds that the performances specified in proviso may

also be brought within the ambit of the Order 2005

then  he  is  always  at  liberty  to  include  any  such

performance in Clause 3.

50

77) We  have  perused  the  decisions  cited  by  the

learned counsel for the appellant mentioned above.

In our opinion, there can be no dispute with the law

laid  down  in  these  cases.  They  are,  however,

distinguishable from the facts contained therein as

compared to the facts of the case at hand.   

78) In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are

of the considered view that the Order 2005 does not

suffer from any arbitrariness or unreasonableness

and nor  it  infringes  the  fundamental  right  of  the

appellant guaranteed under Article 19 (1)(g) of the

Constitution  of  India.   In  other  words,  in  our

considered  view,  both  the  Courts  below  were

justified  in  upholding  the  Order  2005  as  being

constitutional and legal.  

79) Now we uphold the Order 2005, we consider it

apposite  to  direct  the  respondent-Police

Commissioner, Bengaluru to verify and ensure strict

compliance of  the licence conditions, including all

51

the conditions of the Order 2005 in relation to all

the  Licensees  in  whose  favour,  the  licences  have

been issued so far.

80) The  Commissioner  will  further  verify  and

ensure that those restaurant owners who have not

obtained  licences  so  far  and  yet  running  their

restaurant  without  holding  the  licence,  such

restaurant owners be granted some reasonable time

to  apply  for  obtaining  the  licence  after  ensuring

compliances as provided in the Order 2005, which

alone will enable them to run their restaurants in

conformity with the requirements of the Order 2005.

81) Failure to obtain the licence after  granting a

reasonable  time  to  the  restaurant  owners  would

result  in  closure  of  their  restaurants  after  giving

them notice of the closure.  

82) Before parting, we consider it opposite to take

note  of  one  fact  that  though  clause  7  (K)  of  the

Order  2005  rightly  provides  in  general  to  ensure

52

that  the  proposed  premises  do  not  cause  any

obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger

or damage to the residents or to passerby of such

premises,  but  what  we  find  is  that  there  is  no

specific  clause/condition  dealing  with  control  of

noise  pollution which is  likely  to  create  or  rather

bound  to  create  due  to  regular  display  and

performance  of  the  three  activities  in  the

restaurants  thereby  causing   disturbance,

annoyance and inconvenience to the near residents

of the nearby area. The Commissioner shall ensure

that no noise pollution is caused to residents of the

nearby area due to any of the three performances in

any restaurant and that remedial steps are taken in

that behalf.

83) Similarly,  with a view to avert  any untoward

incident  due  to  breaking  of  fire  may  be  for  any

reasons  in  the  licensed  premises,  appropriate

specific safety measures must be carried out under

53

the guidance of team of experts. These steps are in

public interest and it should be given precedence by

the Commissioner of Police not only at the time of

granting  of  license  but  also  by  doing  regular

inspection  of  the  licensed  premises  without  any

lapse on his part.  

84) We  hope  the  Commissioner  will  take  into

consideration these observations.           

85) In view of foregoing discussion and subject to

aforementioned directions,  the  appeal  fails  and is

accordingly dismissed.       

                  ………...................................J.

[R.K. AGRAWAL]             

                         …...……..................................J.

        [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

New Delhi; January 25, 2018