January 28, 2018
A Bench of Supreme Court Judges, Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre dismissed the appeal filed in Karnataka Live Band Restaurants Association v. State of Karnataka & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 4741 of 2007.
The appellant in Supreme Court is the Association registered under the
Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 and Rules framed thereunder. The
Association is formed by the persons, who are engaged in the business of running
the restaurants in various parts of the city of Bangalore. In addition to
serving food items/beverages to their customers, the owners of these restaurants
also entertain their customers by displaying "Live Band Music" in their
restaurants. Indeed, the purpose of providing the facility of "Live Band Music"
is to attract more and more customers in the restaurants. In some restaurants,
the "cabaret dance" and "discotheque" are also performed to attract the
customers.
The facility of "Live Band Music" and other two items in the restaurants is the
reason for dispute, which led to filing of the writ petitions in the High Court
of Karnataka in the year 1989 and later in appeal to this Court by the
appellant-Association and some individual restaurants' owners against the State.
The dispute arose with the following background.
The Karnataka Police Act, 1963, apart from dealing with several other matters
pertaining to police force/administration, also deals with the subject "Police
Regulations" in Chapter IV of the Act. Section 31, which falls in Chapter IV,
deals with power to make, alter or rescind orders issued for regulation of
traffic and for preservation of order in public places. This Section empowers
the Commissioner and the District Magistrate to make orders, alter or rescind
subject to a caveat that it should not be inconsistent with the provisions of
the Act.
The Commissioner and the District Magistrate are empowered to regulate the
traffic and to preserve and control the public places. Section 31 (a) to (z) has
specified different areas for this purpose. It is, in exercise of this power,
the Commissioner/District Magistrate of Bengaluru issued an order in the year
1989 called "Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Amusements (Bangalore
City) Order, 1989" (hereinafter referred to as "the Order 1989"). The
Commissioner then called upon the restaurant owners, who were displaying "Live
Band Music" in their restaurants to obtain the licences under Order 1989 for
running their restaurants and for displaying the Live Band Music.
The restaurants owners felt aggrieved and filed the writ petitions in the High
Court of Karnataka. According to them, their restaurants wherein they were
displaying "Live Band Music" for entertaining their customers, was not an
activity covered under Order 1989. It was contended that these restaurants could
not be treated as a place of "Public Amusement" as defined under Section 2(14)
of the Act, but at best could be treated as a place of "Public Entertainment" as
defined under Section 2(15) of the Act. In other words, the contention of the
writ petitioners was that the applicability of the Order 1989 was confined only
to the places of "Public Amusement" and since the restaurants were displaying
Live Band Music, their place could not be termed as the place of public
amusement as defined under Section 2(14) of the Act. It is for this reason, the
provisions of the Order 1989 could not be extended to their restaurants.
It was contended that there lies a distinction between the activities falling in
"Public Amusement" and those falling in "Public Entertainment" as is clear from
the two expressions defined in Section 2 (14) and Section 2 (15) of the Act. The
Writ Court (Single Judge) finding substance in the writ petitioners'
aforementioned contention allowed the writ petitions and quashed the order of
the Commissioner. However, the Division Bench in an appeal filed by the State
set aside the order of the Single Judge and while allowing the State's appeal
dismissed the writ petitions. The writ petitioners felt aggrieved and filed
appeals by way of special leave before this Court being Civil Appeal Nos.
1857-1858 of 2000.
By order dated 28.11.2002, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and restored
the order of the Single Judge. It was held that the writ petitioners' premises,
i.e., restaurants displaying Live Band Music is not a place of "Public
Amusement" but it is a place of "Public Entertainment". It was held that the
Order 1989 was, therefore, not applicable to the writ petitioners' (appellants')
restaurants for regulating the activities carried on therein as the same fell
outside the purview of the Order 1989. With this factual background, the
Police Commissioner, Bangalore city was required to issue the Order in the year
2005 called "The Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Entertainment
(Bangalore City) Order 2005" under Section 31 of the Act. It is this order which
gave rise to second round of litigation in the High Court and now in this
appeal.
The Order 2005 in this appeal was passed by the Commissioner of Police with a
view to regulate the running and the functioning of the restaurants providing
the facility of displaying "Live Band Music", "cabaret dance" and "discotheque"
in the restaurants. The details of the Order 2005 would be mentioned at a later
stage while dealing with the issues. The appellant-Association felt aggrieved by
the Order 2005 filed writ petitions and challenged its legality and validity.
The Single Judge was of the view that since the Commissioner did not comply with
the procedure laid down in Section 31 of the Act before issuing the Order
inasmuch as he did not invite any objections from the public at large, the Order
2005 is bad in law.
The Single Judge, accordingly, disposed of the writ petitions and directed
the Commissioner of Police to treat the Order 2005 impugned in the writ
petitions to be the "draft Order" and granted an opportunity to the public at
large to file their objections as provided in the Act to the proposed draft
Order 2005 and then to proceed in the case in accordance with law. The Single
Judge further held that since Live Band Music was not being displayed for a long
period in the restaurants, no prejudice would be caused to the restaurants'
owners, if they do not display the Live Band Music for a further period of two
months. The Commissioner was, accordingly, directed to decide the objections, if
any, filed by the parties concerned within two months and then to proceed in
accordance with law.
Dissatisfied with the order of the Single Judge, the appellant-Association
and many other restaurants owners filed intra Court appeal before the Division
Bench. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal. The appellant-Association felt
aggrieved and carried the matter in appeal by special leave before this Supreme
Court.
In the Judgment the court said that "In our considered view, it is the
prime duty, rather statutory duty, of the Police personal/administration of
every State to maintain and give precedence to the safety and the morality of
the people and the State. Indeed, both are important and lie at the heart of the
doctrine that the welfare of an individual must yield to that of the community.
The Act and the Order 2005 are enacted keeping in view the safety and the
morality of the people at large."
"In our view, whenever the impugned action is challenged on the touchstone of
Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, we have to keep in mind the
well-settled principle of law laid down by this Court wherein this Court has
examined lucidly and succinctly the scope and ambit of Articles 14 and
19(1)(g)."
"In our view, those who find themselves unable 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."
"Now we uphold the Order 2005, we consider it apposite to direct the
respondent-Police Commissioner, Bengaluru to verify and ensure strict compliance
of the licence conditions, including all the conditions of the Order 2005 in
relation to all the Licensees in whose favour, the licences have been issued so
far.Similarly, with a view to avert any untoward incident due to breaking of
fire may be for any reasons 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 the
Commissioner of Police not only at the time of granting of license but also by
doing regular inspection of the licensed premises without any lapse on his part.
We hope the Commissioner will take into consideration these observations."
The court dismissed the appeal filed by the Association.
Tweet
Read the Judgment of Supreme Court of India in Karnataka Live Band Restaurants Association v. State of Karnataka & Ors dated 25.1.2018