Even Operating Of Dance Bar Per Se Is Not Completely Prohibited: Bombay High Court Quashes Morality-Based Denial Of Orchestra Performance License

The Bench of Justice NJ Jamadar observed, “In the light of the aforesaid position in law, in the considered view of this Court, the impugned order refusing the performance licence on the ground that a serious law and order situation may arise if licence for orchestra/live music performance was granted, appeared to be without any objective basis. The Licensing Authority has taken into account the objections raised on behalf of the society and citizens which were evidently based on an incorrect impression that once the orchestra/live music performance licensee is granted, the Petitioner would operate the dance bar/ ladies bar. In view of the provisions of the Act 2016, even the operating of dance bar per se is not completely prohibited. Thus on an misplaced apprehension, the performance licence could not have been rejected”

Advocate Bernardo Reis appeared for the Petitioner, while AGP V. G. Badgujar appeared for the Respondents.

Factual Background

The Petitioner, being the sole proprietor of M/s Hausa Restaurant & Bar situated at Sanpada, Navi Mumbai, held valid Eating House and Foreign Liquor (FL-III) licenses. The Petitioner preferred an application before the Commissioner of Police (Respondent No. 1) for the grant of a Live Music Orchestra performance license under the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, and the Public Amusement Rules, 1999.

Upon the issuance of a public notice, the Licensing Authority received approximately 23 objections from Co-operative Housing Societies and over 200 objections from local citizens and representatives opposing the license.

By an order, Respondent No. 1 rejected the application, citing potential law and order issues and public opposition. An appeal was subsequently preferred before the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, which was dismissed on 14th August 2025, thereby upholding the Licensing Authority's decision.

The Petitioner, being aggrieved by these concurrent findings, approached the Hon'ble High Court by way of the present Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Contention of the Parties

It was contended by the Petitioner that the refusal was arbitrary and fell outside the specific grounds for rejection enumerated under Rule 104 of the Public Amusement Rules, 1999. The Petitioner alleged a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice, asserting that no personal hearing was afforded before the rejection of the application.

It was further argued that the Petitioner was a victim of invidious discrimination, as other establishments in the same vicinity and over 50 bars in Navi Mumbai had been granted similar licenses. The Petitioner emphasized that there was no intent to hold "dance performances" and that a categorical undertaking to this effect had been provided.

The State argued that the grant of a license was a matter of discretionary power vested in the Licensing Authority, which must be exercised in the interest of public order. It was submitted that the decision was based on objective material, specifically the massive public outcry and objections from local residents, which indicated a propensity for serious law and order disturbances.

The Respondents further alleged suppression of material facts, pointing out that the Petitioner had a history of violations and license suspensions at another establishment, Kalpana Restaurant.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed that the statutory framework under Section 33 of the Police Act, 1951, empowers the Commissioner to regulate places of public amusement to prevent "obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger or damage" to residents.

The Court said, “The power to impose reasonable restrictions on the right to carry on any occupation, trade or business is in the interest of general public. The fact that the competent authorities have granted licences to operate the premises as a eating house place and even an FL-III licence, indicates that the extant activity of operating a bar and restaurant, albeit under requisite licences, cannot be said to be one which is prohibited. Nor the operation of orchestra or staging live music performance can said to be inherently dangerous or injurious to general public.”

The Court noted the distinction between a "Premises Licence" (Chapter VIII) and a "Performance Licence" (Chapter IX) under the Public Amusement Rules, 1999. The Court scrutinized Rule 104, which provides the specific power to refuse a license if the performance is deemed indecent, seditious, or likely to promote hostile feelings.

The Court further examined Rule 94, which allows for the refusal of a premises license if the location is likely to cause inconvenience or danger to the residents in the vicinity.

"To what extent, the Licensing Authority could refuse the performance licence, if the Applicant satisfies all other requirments solely on the basis of the objections raised by the members of the public in response to the notice under Rule 4 is a matter which warrants a balancing exercise. On the one part, the guarantee of fundamental freedom to carry on any trade or occupation or business is to be secured. On the other hand, the general public needs to be protected from the potential harm that may result from carrying on the particular trade or occupation. Since the activity is regulated by statute and rules, and is not per se immoral, dangerous or inherently injurious, the issue of justifiability of objections based on morality crops up for consideration”, the Court said.

Accordingly, the Petition was allowed and the impugned order, as well as the order passed by the Licensing Authority refusing the performance licence, were quashed and set aside.

The Court also directed the Licensing Authority to grant a performance licence to operate an orchestra/live music performance.

Cause Title: Shivaji Sambu Waghralkar v. The Commissioner of Police and Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:15781]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocates Bernardo Reis, Pratik Dixit, Parampara Mistry

Respondents: AGP V. G. Badgujar

Click here to read/download the Order