| Headnote |
The Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Entertainment (Bangalore City) Order, 2005 – Constitutionality of – Order of 2005 framed u/s.31 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963, regulated the running and functioning of restaurants displaying activities viz. “Live Band Music”, “Cabaret Dance” and “Discotheque” in restaurants – Writ Petitions by appellant- Association before High Court questioning the constitutional validity of the 2005 Order, dismissed by High Court – Held: The 2005 Order does not suffer from any legal infirmity and is therefore constitutional – Appellant’s business activity, viz., running of restaurants, display of Live Band Music and two other performances fall under the expression “Public Entertainment” – 2005 Order was 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, therefore, in the larger public interest, these performances have to be controlled, regulated and supervised by imposing reasonable restrictions in law u/Cl.(6) of Art.19 of the Constitution – Making it obligatory to obtain licence to display Cabaret, Discotheque or Live Band is a reasonable restriction on appellant’s fundamental right to carry on the business of running the restaurants – Controlling of any business by asking its owner to obtain licence to do such business is a reasonable restriction on citizen’s fundamental right u/Art.19(1)(g) r/w 19(6) – Therefore, restaurants engaged in displaying the three performances specified in Cl.2 (b), (d) and (j) of the 2005 Order are under legal obligation to take licence u/Cl.3 – Karnataka Police Act, 1963 – ss.2 (14), 2 (15) and 31 – Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Amusements (Bangalore City) Order, 1989 – Constitution of India – Art.19(1)(g) and 19(6).Karnataka Police Act, 1963 – The Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Entertainment (Bangalore City) Order, 2005 – Purpose of enactment – Held: The 1963 Act and the 2005 Order are enacted keeping in view the safety and the morality of people at large.Maxims – “Salus Populi Supremo Lex” and “Salus republicae supremo lex”– Concept of individual welfare vis-a-vis community welfare – Discussed.Constitution of India – Art. 19(1)(g) – Test of reasonableness in matters of public interest – Held: Test of reasonableness is required to be viewed in the context of the issues, which faced the 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 – In such case therefore, it is required to be decided that whether the restrictions imposed are reasonable in the interest of general public or not.Constitution of India – Art. 19(6) – Expression “in the interest of general public” – Held: Said expression is of wide import which comprehends in it public order, public health, public security, morals, economic welfare of the community and objects mentioned in Part IV of the Constitution.Constitution of India – Art. 19(6) – Power under, of State to regulate running of any business – Rights of an individual qua general public and the State – Held: State has a right to regulate running of any business by putting reasonable restrictions u/Cl.(6) in the interest of general public – Public interest, the welfare and safety of general public always override the right of an individual – There is no prohibition for any individual to carry on any business, however, he has to follow the norms and the statutory regulation framed for carrying on the business.The Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Entertainment (Bangalore City) Order, 2005 – Cl. 7, 8 and 9 – If arbitrary or unreasonable – Held: Conditions specified in Cl.7, 8 & 9 deal with public safety, comforts, convenience, morality and law and order – There is no unreasonableness or arbitrariness in any of the clauses so as to hold that they are unworkable for runningthe restaurant and to display the three performances in question viz. “Live Band Music”, “Cabaret Dance” and “Discotheque” – Those who are not able 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 - 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, he has to follow the norms and the statutory regulation framed for carrying on the business.The Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Entertainment (Bangalore City) Order, 2005 – Grant/Rejection of license under – Powers of licensing authority – Held: The 2005 Order provides a check on the powers of the licensing authority in granting or refusing the licence as the licensing authority is now required to give reasons for rejecting the licence – Such rejection can always be made subject matter of challenge in the Court of law – 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.The Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Entertainment (Bangalore City) Order, 2005 – Proviso to Cl.3– Plea of appellant that the proviso violates Art. 14 contending that Cl.3 creates discrimination by excluding those restaurants from obtaining licence which conduct Yakshagana, Bayalata (field drama) or Bharat Natyam, folk Art, Music recital, vocal or instrumental like Veena or Mrudana etc. Held: Not tenable – The aforesaid performances are not usually performed in restaurants but are performed in theaters or/and auditoriums as one time performance by the artists whereas the three activities in question, viz.- Cabaret, Discotheque and Live Band Music are regularly performed and attract more crowd – Further, those items even if performed in restaurants do not involve any kind of indecency or obscenity whereas the three performances in question may, unless controlled – Thus, there appears reasonable distinction between the two sets of performances – Constitution of India – Art.14.Pollution – Noise Pollution – Caused due to regular display and performance of Cabaret, Discotheque and Live Band Music in the restaurants – Remedial steps for – Direction – Held:Commissioner of Police shall ensure that no noise pollution is caused to the residents of the nearby area due to any of the three performances in any restaurant and that remedial steps are taken in that behalf – The Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Entertainment (Bangalore City) Order, 2005 – Cl.7 (K).Kerala Police Act, 1963 – s.2(15) – Places of public entertainment – Public Interest – Appropriate safety measures – Held: With a view to avert any untoward incident due to breaking of fire in the licensed premises, appropriate specific safety measures must be carried out under the guidance of team of experts – These steps are in public interest and it should be given precedence by Commissioner of Police not only while granting of licenses but also by doing regular inspection of licensed premises without any lapse – The Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Entertainment (Bangalore City) Order, 2005. |
