- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Chandni Hydar Aly v. The State Of West Bengal & Ors.
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner challenged condition no. 14 imposed by Memorandum No. 332 of 2017, which required installation of CCTV cameras at strategic points both inside and outside the licensed premises, including preservation of video footage for fifteen days. The petitioner contended that this condition contravened the Supreme Court's direction in Indian Hotel & Restaurant Association v. State of Maharashtra (W.P 793(W) of 2014), which allowed CCTV cameras only at the entrance and not inside the restaurant or performance areas. The petitioner also contested condition no. 13, arguing it should apply only to existing employees and not prospective ones. The State opposed the petition on grounds of maintainability and public interest, emphasizing crime prevention and safety. The matter was admitted for consideration after the court found that the issue was not decided in an earlier related writ petition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether condition no. 14 mandating installation of CCTV cameras inside the restaurant and performance areas contravenes the Supreme Court's direction in Indian Hotel & Restaurant Association v. State of Maharashtra.
- Whether condition no. 13, relating to verification of employees, should apply only to existing employees or also to prospective employees.
- The maintainability of the instant writ petition given a similar earlier petition on related issues.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- Condition no. 14 contradicts the Supreme Court's order permitting CCTV cameras only at the entrance, not inside the restaurant or performance areas.
- Condition no. 13 should apply only to existing employees, not prospective employees.
- The police authorities are allegedly harassing the petitioner and other restaurant owners by verifying antecedents of prospective employees under condition no. 13.
- The issue raised was not decided in the earlier writ proceeding, making the instant petition maintainable.
State's Arguments
- The instant writ petition is not maintainable as a similar prayer was raised in an earlier writ petition (W.P 16509(W) of 2016).
- Installation of CCTV cameras inside the restaurant and performance areas is in public interest for crime prevention, detection, and evidence collection.
- Condition no. 13 applies to prospective employees as well, aiming at safety and security of restaurant owners and customers.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Indian Hotel & Restaurant Association v. State of Maharashtra (W.P 793(W) of 2014) | Direction limiting CCTV installation to entrances only, excluding restaurant and performance areas. | The court relied on this precedent to read down condition no. 14, restricting CCTV cameras inside the premises until further modification by the Apex Court. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court observed that the earlier writ petition did not address the issue of CCTV installation inside the restaurant or performance areas on merits. Therefore, the petitioner could not be nonsuited on maintainability grounds. The court recognized the necessity to test the validity of condition no. 14 against the Supreme Court’s direction in Indian Hotel & Restaurant Association. It admitted the writ petition for consideration. The court directed that CCTV cameras may be installed at strategic points outside the restaurant in consultation with the excise department but restrained excise authorities from insisting on cameras inside the restaurant or performance areas until the Apex Court’s order is varied or modified. Regarding condition no. 13, the court clarified that it applies to both existing and prospective employees but mandated prompt disposal of police verification applications within seven days. The court emphasized that lawful surveillance by law enforcement agencies for crime prevention and evidence collection is not impeded by this order. The interim order was to continue for three months or until further orders.
Holding and Implications
The writ petition was admitted.
The court held that condition no. 14 must be read down in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directions, restricting CCTV installation inside the restaurant and performance areas until further modification by the Apex Court. Condition no. 13 applies to both existing and prospective employees, with a requirement for timely police verification. The order ensures that law enforcement agencies retain the ability to conduct lawful surveillance for crime prevention. The immediate effect is a limitation on excise authorities’ enforcement of CCTV installation inside premises, pending further Apex Court direction. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing Supreme Court directions.
Joymalya Bagchi, J.:— Let affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept with record.
2. It is submitted by Mr. Saha Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that condition no. 14 imposed upon his client vide Memorandum No. 332 of 2017, inter alia, directing installation of CCTV cameras at the strategic points both inside and outside the licensed premises in consultation with the excise authority so that video footage of any untoward or indecent incident is readily available for viewing by the excise authority, and such video footage of the performers and the surroundings of the stage for performance be preserved for fifteen days has been challenged on the premises that the said condition No. 13 runs counter to the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in its order dated 18.04.2016 in Indian Hotel & Restaurant Association v. State of Maharashtra (W.P 793(W) of 2014), wherein similar direction issued by the State of Maharashtra was modified by the Apex Court and CCTV cameras were permitted to be set up at the entrance of the premises only and not in the restaurant or permit area or the performance area. Learned counsel also criticises condition no. 13 of the said memorandum and submits that such condition ought to apply to existing and not prospective employees.
3. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing with Mr. Bhattacharyya for the State opposes such prayer and submits that similar prayer was raised on behalf of the association of the petitioner in W.P 16509(W) of 2016. Hence, the instant writ petition is not maintainable on such score. It is also submitted that it is in public interest and for the purpose of maintenance of public order that CCTV cameras have been proposed to be set-up in the restaurants and performing areas for prevention of crime and also detection and collection of evidence relating to any criminal activity. Condition No. 13, it is argued, applies to prospective employees also has been imposed keeping in mind the safety and security of the restaurant owners and its customers.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Saha Roy, learned Counsel, submits that the issue raised in the writ petition was not decided in the earlier writ proceeding and, therefore, the instant writ petition is maintainable. He also submits that condition no. 14 runs contrary to the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is non-est in the eye of law and the police authorities are harassing the petitioner and other restaurant owners in the name of verification of antecedents of prospective employees.
5. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties. In W.P No. 16509(W) of 2016 the issue of setting up of CCTV cameras within the restaurant area or the performance arena had not been pressed by the petitioners and no decision on merits had been taken in the said proceeding on such issue.
6. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be nonsuited on that score. Moreover, it is necessary to test the validity of such condition in the light of the direction given by the Apex Court in Indian Hotel & Restaurant Association (supra). Hence, the writ petition is admitted.
7. Affidavit in opposition be filed within four weeks from date; reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
8. Let this matter appear under the same heading six weeks hence.
9. Hence, it is directed that in view of direction issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a similar matter while the petitioner shall be required to set-up CCTV cameras in consultation with excise department at the strategic points outside the restaurant premises where he carries on business in accordance with law, the excise authorities shall not insist on setting up CCTV cameras within the restaurant area or the area of performance until the order dated 18.04.2016 passed by the Apex Court in Indian Hotel & Restaurant Association (supra) is varied or modified in accordance with law. With regard to condition no. 13, it is made clear that the said condition shall govern both prosecutive and existing employees but any application for verification of identity of prospective and/or present employees made to the police authorities shall be promptly dealt with and disposed of not later than seven days from the date of making of such application. I am of the prima facie opinion that condition no. 14 has to be read down in terms of the direction of the Apex Court in Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association (Supra). The aforesaid order shall not stand in the way of the law enforcement agencies to carry on for prevention of crimes and/or maintenance of law and order, lawful surveillance activity in or around the restaurant premises and/or detection and collection of evidence of any crime in accordance with law.
10. Interim order shall continue for three months or until further orders, whichever is earlier.
11. Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.
Alert