- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Indian Hotel And Restaurant Association And Another v. State Of Maharashtra And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners, an association of hotel and restaurant owners in Maharashtra, approached the Supreme Court by way of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 793 of 2014 and connected contempt petitions after the State reenacted Section 33-A of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. An earlier two-Judge Bench decision in “State of Maharashtra v. Indian Hotel and Restaurants Assn.” (2013) 8 SCC 519 had already declared the previous version of Sections 33-A and 33-B unconstitutional.
Claiming that the revived Section 33-A was “in the same form and character” as the provision previously struck down, the petitioners sought an interim stay. Between October 2015 and July 2016, a series of interim orders were passed by Benches comprising Dipak Misra J. and companion Judges:
- 15-10-2015: Operation of Section 33-A(1) stayed; authorities directed to process licence applications without applying the impugned restriction.
- 26-11-2015, 25-04-2016 and 10-05-2016: Court monitored compliance, examined State-imposed conditions, and fixed timelines for issuing licences.
- 13-05-2016 and 12-07-2016: Court recorded partial grant of licences and scheduled further hearing on the validity of additional statutory conditions under the 2016 State Act.
No final adjudication on the constitutionality of the reenacted provision has yet been rendered; the matter remains pending.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the reenacted Section 33-A of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, is ultra vires in light of the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment in Indian Hotel (2013) 8 SCC 519.
- Whether the State of Maharashtra could impose additional licensing conditions—such as health department NOCs, fire-safety compliance, verification of employees’ criminal antecedents, and structural modifications—while Section 33-A stood stayed.
- What constitutes “criminal antecedents” sufficient to deny a dance-bar licence pending final adjudication.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners’ Arguments
- The 2015 reenactment of Section 33-A is substantially identical to the provision struck down in 2013; deleting Section 33-B does not cure the constitutional defect.
- An immediate stay is warranted because the revived provision directly conflicts with binding precedent.
- Licensing authorities are delaying and creating impossible conditions (e.g., redundant health NOCs, certificates obtainable only after a licence is issued).
- Employees should not be disqualified merely because criminal cases are pending; conviction, not accusation, should determine “criminal antecedents.”
State of Maharashtra’s Arguments
- Undertook to file further affidavits and to comply with Court directions on licensing.
- Maintained that several applicants had failed to meet statutory and safety conditions—especially absence of health-department NOCs, fire-safety measures, and verification of employees’ criminal records.
- Argued that pending criminal cases against employees justified withholding licences.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State of Maharashtra v. Indian Hotel and Restaurants Assn., (2013) 8 SCC 519 | Declared earlier Sections 33-A and 33-B unconstitutional; recognised licensing authority’s power to regulate obscenity without blanket bans. | Served as the principal basis for staying operation of the reenacted Section 33-A(1); Court reiterated that licensing authorities already possess adequate power to prevent obscene performances. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court’s interim analysis proceeded in stages:
- Prima facie similarity between the reenacted Section 33-A and the provision invalidated in 2013 warranted an immediate stay to preserve the authority of precedent.
- While staying the provision, the Court emphasised that dance performances must not be “remotely expressive of any kind of obscenity,” affirming the State’s regulatory power through existing licensing mechanisms.
- On compliance issues, the Court scrutinised each State-imposed condition:
- Health-department “NOC” deemed unnecessary when the department had already licensed the establishment.
- Fire-safety requirements considered satisfied by existing fire licences; further strict compliance could follow issuance of the dance-bar licence.
- Certificates from the Rangbhumi Prayog Parinirikshan Mandal could logically be obtained only after a licence was granted.
- Verification of employees’ criminal antecedents was upheld as a legitimate prerequisite, with the police directed to complete checks within one week.
- Structural conditions (three-foot railing and five-foot distance) were ordered to be rectified within seven days.
- To expedite licensing, the Court required applicants to file undertakings that employees facing criminal charges would not enter dance areas, enabling licences to issue pending the larger question of what constitutes disqualifying antecedents.
- When the State issued three licences subject to compliance with the 2016 State Act, the Court allowed the bars to function but fixed a future date to examine whether such a condition conflicted with its earlier stay order.
Holding and Implications
INTERIM STAY GRANTED; Section 33-A(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, remains suspended, and the State is directed to process and grant dance-bar licences subject only to conditions consistent with the Supreme Court’s 2013 judgment and the specific directions in these interim orders.
Implications: The order immediately reopens the door for dance-bar operations in Maharashtra under a monitored licensing regime, reinforcing judicial authority over legislative reenactments that mirror previously invalidated statutes. The matter is still sub judice, and no final constitutional determination has yet been made; however, the State must honour the Court’s directions in the interim.
(2016) 15 SCC 333
Order dated 14-10-2015
(Before Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.)
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 793 of 2014 with Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 248, 275 of 2014 in CA No. 2705 of 2006
1. Mr Jayant Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that the similar provision has been declared ultra vires by a two-Judge Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Indian Hotel and Restaurants Assn. (2013) 8 SCC 519 and thereafter, the same provision has been enacted excluding Section 33-B of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. It is urged by him that deletion of Section 33-B does not invalidate the judgment rendered by this Court and, therefore, there should be an operation of the stay of the provision as it directly comes in conflict with the pronounced law without removing the base.
2. It is further submitted by him that Section 33-B was also declared unconstitutional in the decision rendered in Indian Hotel case (2013) 8 SCC 519, but Section 33-A has been reincarnated in the same form and character.
3. Prayer for stay shall be considered tomorrow i.e. on 15-10-2015.
(2016) 15 SCC 334
Order dated 26-11-2015
(Before Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.)
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 793 of 2014
4. Mr Harish Salve, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Ms Pinky Anand, learned ASG and Mr Nishant Katneshwarkar, learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra and others submitted that he will file a further proper affidavit within four weeks hence. Rejoinder-affidavit, if any, be filed within four weeks therefrom.
5. At this juncture, Mr Kapil Sibal and Mr Jayant Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that the interim order passed by this Court on 15-10-2015 (2015) 16 SCC 100 has not yet been implemented. It is urged by them that the applications were submitted by the hoteliers on 26-10-2015 and thereafter pursuant to the order passed by this Court. To appreciate the aforesaid stand, we may reproduce a passage from our earlier order (2015) 16 SCC 100: (Indian Hotel & Restaurant Assn. (2015) 16 SCC 100)
“15. In view of the aforesaid and regard being had to the pronouncement in Indian Hotel case (2013) 8 SCC 519, we think it appropriate to stay the operation of the provisions enshrined under Section 33-A(1) of the Act. However, we add a rider that no performance of dance shall remotely be expressive of any kind of obscenity in any manner. We may hasten to clarify that in the earlier judgment, it has been clearly stated that sufficient power is vested with the licensing authority to safeguard any violation of the dignity of women through obscene dances. Regard being had to the same, the licensing authority can take steps so that the individual dignity of a woman is not affected and there remains no room for any kind of obscenity.
16. As we are staying the provision, if the members of the petitioner apply for licence, the same shall be considered in accordance with law without taking note of the restriction as Section 33-A has been stayed by us.”
We have reproduced the said paragraph only to remind the authorities of the State that they are obliged in law to enforce the said order without any kind of deviation. An order passed by the Court is to be respected.
6. We must also fairly state that Mr Salve, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the order shall be complied with within two weeks hence and the licences shall be issued to the applicants, on their fulfilling the conditions. Needless to say, when the licences are issued, the hoteliers shall strictly be guided by the directions which we have given hereinbefore and the regulatory measures that are going to be imposed by the licence-granting authority.
7. As there is no objection to the application for impleadment, the prayer stands allowed.
8. Let the matter be listed for further hearing on 10-2-2016.
(2016) 15 SCC 335
Order dated 25-4-2016
(Before Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ.)
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 793 of 2014
9. In pursuance of our order dated 18-4-2016 WP (C) No. 793 of 2014, Mr Pradip Bhalchandra Sawant, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters I, (Hotel Division), is personally present. He has also filed an affidavit. Relying on the affidavit, it is submitted by Ms Pinky Anand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra that most of the applicants have not complied with any of the conditions imposed by this Court and some have complied with in part and that is why licences have not been granted. The learned Senior Counsel has prepared a chart which is a part of the affidavit. We intend to advert to Sl. Nos. 1, 2, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 of the chart. The deficiencies pointed out as far as the said applicants are concerned, are as follows:
“Sl. No. Name of hotels Condition not complied by licensee 1. M/s Hotel Bombay Fancy, MRA Marg (1) No NOC is obtained from BMC Health Department in view of Dance Bar Licence. (2) The conditions laid down by Chief Fire Officer are not followed strictly. (3) Criminal antecedents of the employees are not verified. (4) Rangbhumi Prayog Parinirikshan Mandal certificate is not obtained. (5) Non-removable railing of 3 ft height adjacent to the dance stage is not fixed. 2. M/s Hotel May Rose, Azad Maidan (1) NOC from BMC Health Department in view of Dance Bar Licence is not obtained. (2) The conditions laid down by the Chief Fire Officer are not followed strictly. (3) Criminal antecedents of the employees are not verified. (4) Rangbhumi Prayog Parinirikshan Mandal certificate is not obtained. *** 25. M/s Hotel Ratna Park, Andheri (1) NOC from BMC Health Department in view of Dance Bar Licence is not obtained. (2) Criminal antecedents of the employees are not verified. (3) The conditions laid down by Chief Fire Officer are not followed strictly. (4) Rangbhumi Prayog Parinirikshan Mandal certificate is not obtained. ***
28. M/s Goldan Palace, Andheri (1) NOC from BMC Health Department in view of Dance Bar Licence is not obtained. (2) Criminal antecedents of the employees are not verified. (3) The conditions laid down by Chief Fire Officer are not followed strictly. (4) Rangbhumi Prayog Parinirikshan Mandal certificate is not obtained. 29. M/s Urvashi Bar & Rest, Andheri (1) NOC from BMC Health Department in view of Dance Bar Licence is not obtained. (2) Criminal antecedents of the employees are not verified. (3) The conditions laid down by Chief Fire Officer are not followed strictly. (4) Rangbhumi Prayog Parinirikshan Mandal certificate is not obtained. 30. M/s Auro Punjab, Andheri (1) NOC from BMC Health Department in view of Dance Bar Licence is not obtained. (2) The conditions laid down by Chief Fire Officer are not followed strictly. (3) Criminal antecedents of the employees are not verified. (4) Rangbhumi Prayog Parinirikshan Mandal certificate is not obtained. 31. M/s Durgaprasad, Andheri (1) NOC from BMC Health Department in view of Dance Bar Licence is not obtained. (2) The conditions laid down by Chief Fire Officer are not followed strictly. (3) Criminal antecedents of the employees are not verified. (4) Rangbhumi Prayog Parinirikshan Mandal certificate is not obtained. 32. M/s Giddi Bar & Rest, Andheri (1) NOC from BMC Health Department in view of Dance Bar Licence is not obtained. (2) The conditions laid down by Chief Fire Officer are not followed strictly. (3) Criminal antecedents of the employees are not verified. (4) Rangbhumi Prayog Parinirikshan Mandal certificate is not obtained. (5) Non-removable railing of 3 ft height adjacent to the dance stage is not fixed. (6) There should be distance of 5 ft between non-removable railing and the seats for the customers which is not followed. 33. M/s Hotel Saiprasad, Andheri (1) NOC from BMC Health Department in view of Dance Bar Licence is not obtained. (2) The conditions laid down by Chief Fire Officer are not followed strictly. (3) Criminal antecedents of the employees are not verified. (4) Rangbhumi Prayog Parinirikshan Mandal certificate is not obtained.”
10. It is submitted by Mr Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel that BMC, Health Department has already given the licence. The Department has communicated that there is nothing called “no objection” as it does not come under the purview of the Health Department and, therefore, it cannot be given. In our considered opinion when a hotel/restaurant is given the licence by the Health Department concerned and there is a communication in the language which has been mentioned hereinabove further NOC from it is not necessary.
11. As far as the second condition is concerned, it states that the conditions laid down by the Chief Fire Officer are not followed strictly. We fail to fathom that how can it be followed strictly when the licence has not been given. When there is a hotel and restaurant and there is fire licence, we are inclined to think that that meets the said condition. Needless to say if there would be any violation in future, appropriate action can be taken. The other condition pertains to obtaining of certificate from Rangbhumi Prayog Parinirikshan Mandal. The said certificate, as we understand can only be obtained after licence is obtained not prior to that. It is because it is stated that action pertains to the arena of supervision and the supervision can only take place after the licence is granted.
12. The next condition relates to verification of criminal antecedents of employees. The said stipulation is absolutely necessary and, therefore, we direct that if any of the hotel owners has applied, the verifications shall take place by the local police within a week hence and if there is no application then the same shall be done by 26-4-2016 so that steps can be taken accordingly.
13. The other deficiencies as per the chart are increase of railing of 3 ft height adjacent to the dance stage and maintenance of distance of 5 ft between non-removable railing and the seats for the customers. The said deficiencies shall be made good within seven days hence. Mr Sawant shall get it verified after being intimated about the compliance.
14. We have been apprised that four hotels, namely, M/s Hotel Bombay Fancy, MRA Marg, M/s Hotel May Rose, Azad Maidan; Hotel Deepak, Dongari and M/s Shapoor Tipsy, Dongari, were granted licences but they have been revoked. The grounds have been mentioned in the order of revocation. Mr Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel submits that they will make good the grounds within a week hence.
15. We direct the competent authority of the State of Maharashtra to carry out the verification within the time stipulated. If there is compliance the licences shall be granted. If any other condition is to be imposed as per the conditions imposed on Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working Therein) Act, 2016, can be imposed by the authority as far as the said restriction pertains to prohibition of obscene dance. We have passed the present order notwithstanding the other restrictions imposed under the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
16. Call on 10-5-2016.
(2016) 15 SCC 338
Order dated 10-5-2016
(Before Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ.)
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 793 of 2014
17. Heard Mr Jayant Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel, along with Mr Prasenjit Keswani, learned counsel for the petitioner Association, Ms Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General along with Mr Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra, Mr Sanjib Sen, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 5 and Dr Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 3.
18. It is submitted by Ms Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General that the eight restaurants, namely, M/s Ratna Park Restaurant & Bar, Andheri; M/s Auro Punjab Restaurant & Bar, Andheri; M/s Durga Prasad Restaurant & Bar, Andheri; M/s Guddi Restaurant & Bar, MIDC; M/s Sai Prasad (Classic) Restaurant & Bar, Andheri; M/s Uma Palace Restaurant & Bar, Mulund; M/s Natraj Restaurant & Bar, Tilak Nagar and M/s Indiana Restaurant & Bar, Tardeo, have not been given the licences because this Court had directed that criminal antecedents of the employees of these restaurants/hotels were to be verified.
19. The singular grievance that is advanced today is that while verifying the criminal antecedents, it has come to the notice that certain employees of the restaurants and bar have been booked under certain criminal offences and, therefore, licences have not yet been issued.
20. It is submitted by Mr Jayant Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that unless a person is convicted, it cannot be said that he has a criminal antecedent. The same is seriously disputed by Ms Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General. We do not intend to address the same at present.
21. However, it is directed that an undertaking shall be given by each of the applicants who have filed applications for grant of licence, that they shall not engage the employees whose names have been mentioned in the affidavit filed on 9-5-2016, by the State of Maharashtra in the bar and dance areas. They may get engagement in other areas. The undertaking shall also contain a clause that the said employees shall not be allowed to enter the bar and dance area in the evening. The said undertaking shall be filed by 11-5-2016. Upon such undertaking being given, the licences shall be issued.
22. Some grievance has been made by Ms Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General about the height of railing and on that Mr Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the same has been complied with. Be that as it may, we direct the authorities concerned to give the licences by 12-5-2016, and to file a compliance report before this Court.
23. List the matter on 13-5-2016.
(2016) 15 SCC 339 (1)
Order dated 13-5-2016
(Before Dipak Misra, Shiva Kirti Singh and L. Nageswara Rao, JJ.)
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 793 of 2014 with SLPs (C) Nos. 13764, 15953 of 2012, SLP (C) No. 8992 of 2013, Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 248, 275 of 2014 in CA No. 2705 of 2006
24. Heard Mr Jayant Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Ms Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General for the State, Dr Rajeev Dhavan, learned counsel for Respondent 3 and Mr Sanjib Sen, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 5. We have been apprised by the learned counsel for the State that three licences have been issued. The said position is not disputed by Mr Bhushan. However, it is submitted by Mr Bhushan that a condition has been imposed that the licensees shall comply with the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working Therein) Act, 2016 within 60 days which is contrary to the tenor of the order passed (2013) 8 SCC 519 by this Court. Be that as it may, we direct these three Dance Bars to function.
25. Let the matter be listed on 7-7-2016 to consider the aforesaid argument. That apart, this Court, on that day, shall also address to the conditions imposed by the State in respect of other applicants. However, the State authorities shall process the applications of the said applicants and point out the deficiencies, if any, to them and also file the same by way of an affidavit before this Court. As the State has granted 60 days, the said period shall not be reduced as the court is going to deliberate on the said issue.
26. Call on the date fixed.
(2016) 15 SCC 339 (2)
Order dated 12-7-2016
(Before Dipak Misra and Chockalingam Nagappan, JJ.)
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 793 of 2014 with SLPs (C) Nos. 13764, 15953 of 2012, SLP (C) No. 8992 of 2013, Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 248, 275 of 2014 in CA No. 2705 of 2006
27. Let these matters be listed on 18-7-2016 along with Writ Petition (D. No. 22533 of 2016) filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Alert