SUKHVINDER KAUR KARTARSINGH DHILLONversusTHE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE THANE AND ANR

                          1/8                 16 WP 14886-22.doc


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
             WRIT PETITION NO. 14886 OF 2022
Sukhvinder Kaur Kartarsingh Dhillon .. Petitioner
                Versus
The Commissioner of Police, Thane and .. Respondents
anr
                              WITH
              WRIT PETITION NO. 14893 OF 2022
Narayan Bodi Sahu                     .. Petitioner
                Versus
The Commissioner of Police, Thane and .. Respondents
ors
                              WITH
              WRIT PETITION NO. 14892 OF 2022
Sanjeeva Shetty                       .. Petitioner
                Versus
The Commissioner of Police, Thane and   ..   Respondents
anr

                          WITH
             WRIT PETITION NO. 14909 OF 2022
Mahesh Shivram Puthran              .. Petitioner
                Versus
The Commissioner of Police, Thane and   ..   Respondents
ors

                           WITH
              WRIT PETITION NO. 15943 OF 2022
Suresh Motiram Mali                  .. Petitioner
                Versus
The Commissioner of Police, Thane and   ..   Respondents
anr

                           WITH
              WRIT PETITION NO. 14884 OF 2022

Tilak
                          2/8                 16 WP 14886-22.doc


Sindhu Tukaram Deshmukh                 ..   Petitioner
                Versus
The Commissioner of Police, Thane and   ..   Respondents
ors

                           WITH
              WRIT PETITION NO. 14895 OF 2022
Raakesh H. Jain                      .. Petitioner
                Versus
The Commissioner of Police, Thane and .. Respondents
ors
                              WITH
              WRIT PETITION NO. 14897 OF 2022
Naresh Balaram Bhoir                  .. Petitioner
                Versus
The Commissioner of Police, Thane and   ..   Respondents
anr

                          WITH
             WRIT PETITION NO. 14891 OF 2022
Devdas Sadashiv Shetty              .. Petitioner
                Versus
The Commissioner of Police, Thane and .. Respondents
ors
                              WITH
             WRIT PETITION NO. 15946 OF 2022
Darshankaur Vazirsingh                .. Petitioner
                Versus
The Commissioner of Police, Thane and   ..   Respondents
ors


                                ..
Ms.Veena Thadhani a/w Rutuja Gaikwad for the Petitioners.
Mr.Karan Thorat, B Panel Counsel for State in WP
No.15943/2022.
Ms.Nisha Mehra, AGP for State in all other matters.

Tilak
                             3/8               16 WP 14886-22.doc




                   CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE &
                           MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ
                   DATED : 2nd JULY, 2026.


JUDGMENT:- (Per Bharati Dangre, J)

1       The counsel for the petitioners is at liberty to file her
vakalatnama.

        Amongst the 10 Writ Petitions listed before us, the
aforesaid two Writ Petitions i.e. WP Nos.14893/2022 and WP
No.14897/2022       having   been   rendered   infructuous,         are
disposed of.
2       The Writ Petitions filed by individuals, who are granted
Performance Licences under the Rules for Licensing and
Controlling Places of Public Amusement (Other than Cinemas)
and Performances for Public Amusement, including Cabaret
Performances, Discotheque, Games, Game Parlors, Amusement
Parlours providing computer Games, Virtual Reality Games,
Cyber Cafes, Games with Net Connectivity, Bowling Alleys, Card
Rooms, social Clubs, Sports Clubs, Melas and Tamashas, Rules,
1960, and based upon which they were carrying out
activity/business in their Restaurants.
        The petitioners filed Renewal Applications before the
Competent Authority, as in the past their licences have been
renewed time to time and the last renewal was upto 2019.
However, it is pleaded that in March 2020 due to Covid
Pandemic, an order was passed on 24/03/2020 under the

Tilak
                             4/8                16 WP 14886-22.doc


Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 when complete lock-down was
imposed. Similarly, the State Government also issued various
orders under the said Act, under which all the Restaurants and
Bars were directed to be shut down until further orders, and it
was only on 25/02/2022, the Central Government issued order
relaxing the restrictions imposed on 24/03/2020, which was
honored by the State Government and the restrictions imposed
were relaxed.
3.      It is a pleaded case of the petitioners that though the
Restaurants were permitted to carry on business, the orchestra
performances were not allowed to re-start and therefore, for
the years 2020 to 2021, the activity remained closed and thus,
the performances licences were not operated at all.
        The petitioners made applications for renewal of the
licences, and requested for some relaxation in the licence fee
for the year 2020 and 2021, as they were not permitted to
operate the said licence, and they canvassed that increase in
the licence fee from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-, was already
stayed by the Division Bench of this Court in WP No.
4712/2021 by passing an order on 17/11/2021, where Rule is
also issued.    It is the case of the petitioners     that they are
unable to continue the activities, and the learned counsel Ms.
Thadani     make    a    statement   that   pending    renewal       of
performance licences, at a subsequent point of time, the
petitioners started running their business and are presently
operating the licence.


Tilak
                             5/8                     16 WP 14886-22.doc


4       Though the State Government had not bothered to file its
response, despite the petitions being filed in the year 2022, we
have perused the petitions and the pleadings therein.
        In the backdrop of the request of the petitioners to not
charge them the licence fee for the Corona Pandemic period, as
the Performance Licence was not at all put to use, as running of
Orchestras was completely prohibited due to the pandemic and
this prohibition remained in force from 24/03/2020 and the
restrictions imposed were only relaxed on 25/02/2022, the
Petitioners claim that they shall not be imposed with the
liability of licence fee for the aforesaid period.
5       This precise concern was raised in WP No.4712/2021,
when the Court took cognizance of the fact that the petitioner
before the Court who was running a Restaurant and Bar based
on the Premises Licence and Performance Licences which
authorized him to hold orchestra music program, approached
the Court raising a grievance about the increase in annual
licence fee from Rs.2000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-, and particularly
this was being done with retrospective effect from 2018, as the
petitioner had received a notice demanding the renewal fees for
the orchestra licence of the period 2019 to 2021, and failing
which it was threatened that the licence shall be cancelled.
6       With this background, the Division Bench took note of the
fact that there is imposition of lock-down since March 2020 and
the argument advanced that the premises were not ‘entirely
shut down’ or ‘not shut down for the whole period’ was without


Tilak
                             6/8                16 WP 14886-22.doc


any merit, as definitely the 2020 lock-down had paralysed the
activities   of such establishment and the date on which the
order was passed i.e. on 17/11/2021, the Court recorded that
even today orchestra live performances are not being permitted.
        Further, noting that the premises being shut and there
being no patrons, the income or revenue of the establishments
from in-house services or performances was reduced to zero,
and as against this situation, the demand raised was excessive,
disproportionate and paid no heed to the Pandemic and lock-
down circumstances, which have even resulted in passing of
judicial orders extending period of limitation             and even
ordering temporary cessation of action against illegal structures
by the municipalities.
        In these circumstances, interim relief came to be granted
in terms of prayer clause (e) and (f).
7       In the wake of the aforesaid relief granted, the effect and
operation of the impugned demand notice, served upon the
petitioner was served, but by virtue of prayer clause (f), the
effect and operation of the increase in licence fee for the
Premises Licence with Orchestra Performances from Rs.2000/-
to Rs.2,00,000/- i.e. the increase being 100 times over the
earlier licence fee has also been stayed.
        We are informed that the concerned Writ Petition is
presently pending for adjudication before this Court along with
the interim relief in terms of prayer clause (e) and (f).
        As far as the group of Petitions before us are concerned,


Tilak
                             7/8                16 WP 14886-22.doc


the Petitioners make a request for deciding the Application for
renewal of the Premises and Performance licence for carrying
out Orchestra Program in the Restaurant owned by them
without insisting the payment of licence fee for two years i.e.
2020 and 2021, as the activities were completely shut down on
account of the imposition of restrictions on declaration of the
Pandemic.
        We are of the view that the petitioners deserve relaxation
in payment of the licence fee definitely from 24/03/2020 till
25/02/2022, and as already noted by the Division Bench in the
order of 17/11/2021 that judicial cognizance of the restrictions
imposed during pandemic has already been taken. Further, the
Hon'ble Apex Court, In Re: Cognizance for Extension of
Limitation,1 directed exclusion of the period of limitation for
the aforesaid period, and by the orders passed by the Central
Government, certain relaxations have been granted, even as
regards payment of lease, rents etc.
        Since the position cannot be disputed that the petitioners
were unable to operate their licences in the year 2020 and
2021, we direct the Commissioner of Police, Thane City to
consider this important aspect.
        Furthermore, since there is a stay granted to the revision
of the licence fee, enhancing it from Rs.2000/- to Rs.
2,00,000/-, we permit the respondent No.1 to compute the
licence fee due and payable, by taking into account the stay on
the revision of the licence fee and by computing the amount
1 (2022) 3 SCC 117

Tilak
                                 8/8                16 WP 14886-22.doc


due and payable           till date, consider the applications of the
petitioners for renewal of the licences.
8.      Ms. Thadani for the petitioner         make a statement that
pending the Applications for renewal before Respondent No.1,
the petitioners have already started their activities, we leave it
open for Respondent No.1 to take appropriate action, which
may include an action of shutting down the said premises if
the operation was without the renewal of licences, or if an
option is available to Respondent No.1 to recover the licence
fee along with late payment/penalty amount, the Commissioner
of Police, Thane city is entitled to take a decision in that regard
on every individual application of the petitioners within a
period of three months from today.
        In   light   of    the   aforesaid,   the   respondent           no.1,
Commissioner of Police, Thane, shall take into account the
aspect which is pressed into service by Ms.Thadani that every
year, an application for renewal was filed and therefore, he
shall ascertain as to what is the consequence of merely filing an
application for renewal without the licence fee being paid.




(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J)                       (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)




Tilak