Vishal Saxena v. Lieutenant Governor

1. Allowed, subject to alljust exceptions. W.P.rC) No.3957/2018

2. Issue Notice. 2.[1] Mr. Gautam Narayan accepts noticeoh behalfof the respondents. Mr. Narayan says that he does not wish to file a counter affidavit and will argue the matter on the basis of the documents, presently, availableon record.

3. The petitioner, who was issued a licence for running a guest house under the name and style of "D.R.S. CONTINENTAL", has had his licence suspended by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licencing Unit) [A.S.P.] vide order dated 26.5.2017. 3.[1] The appellate authority i.e.. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, has sustained the order suspending the licence by rejecting the appeal preferred W.P.(C) No.3957/2018 Pg- 1of[3] 2018:DHC:8897 by the petitioner.

4. What is not disputed before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that a rent agreement dated 15.6.2010 was executed between him and one, Mr. Gautam Kumar Saha. 4.[1] It is the petitioner's contention, though, that the said rent agreement was not carried forward and therefore, contrary to what has been held against him, there is no violation ofRegulation 21 ofthe Regulations for Keeping Places of Public Entertainment in the Union Territory of Delhi, 1980 (hereafter referred to as 'Regulations'). Regulation 21 being material, for the sake of convenience, is extracted hereinbelow: "Regulation 21 A license granted for the keepim places ofpublic entertainment shall not be transferable or assignable but shall be personal for the benefit ofthe person only to whom it is sranted and where such person transfers or assigns his business to any other person or enters into an agreement with another person, involving his giving up the conduct or control over the business, the license granted to him shall stand terriiinated on and from the date ofsuch transaction. However, in the c^se ofdeath of licensee, his heir or legal repre^eniafive may make an application within one month from the date of death to the Commissioner ofPolice or any other officer authorized by him in this behalf to have the benefit of the license for the unexpired portion of the term of the license and the Commissioner or any other officer authorized by him in this behalf may decide the application having regard to the provision ofregulations." (emphasis is mine)

5. A plain reading ofRegulation 21 would show that a license issued to a person for keeping a place ofpublic entertainment cannot betransferred or W.P.(C) No.3957/2018 Pg- ^of[3] vassigned and, if such an eventuahty occurs, the licence shall stand terminated. As indicated above, via the impugned orders, only suspension ofthepetitioner's licence has been directed. 5.[1] Given the fact that the petitioner accepts that the premises inissue qua which the licence was issued were the subject matter of a rent agreement, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders especially having regardto the finding contained therein.

6. Atthis stage, learned counsel for the petitioner says that hewould like to approach the A.C.P with a suitable representation for recall of the impugned order. Liberty in that behalfis granted. Ifsuch arepresentation is made, the A.C.P will examine the same and if so persuaded, will revoke the order ofsuspension.

7. Writpetitionis disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Va ' RAJIV SHAKDHER, J APRIL 20, 2018