(Dipak Misra and C. Nagappan, JJ.)
Indian Hotel & Restaurant Association & Anr. ___________ Petitioner(s)
v.
State of Maharashtra & Anr. _______________________ Respondent(s)
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 793/2014, decided on August 30, 2016
With S.L.P.(C) No. 13764/2012, S.L.P.(C) No. 8992/2013, Conmt. Pet. (C) No. 275/2014 in C.A. No. 2705/2006, Conmt. Pet. (C) No. 248/2014 in C.A. No. 2705/2006, S.L.P.(C) No. 15953/2012 and W.P.(C) No. 576/2016
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
Writ Petition (C) No. 576 of 2016
1. Heard Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Prasenjit Keswani, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General and Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel for the State of Maharashtra.
2. In this writ petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have called in question the constitutional validity of Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (working therein) Act, 2016 (Mah. Act No. XII of 2016). The basic challenges pertain to definition contained in 2(8)(i) that relates to “obscene dance”, Section 6(4) and sub-sections 2 and 4 of Section 8. Be it stated, the State of Maharashtra has framed a set of rules, namely, Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurants and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (working therein) Rules, 2016.
3. Mr. Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that certain rules are absolutely unreasonable and run counter to the previous judgment rendered in State of Maharashtra v. Indian Hotel and Restaurants Association (2013) 8 SCC 519. He has taken us through Rule 3(iii) and, additionally, the general conditions which form part of the Schedule appended to Rules. The general conditions which have been challenged are paragraphs 2 and 11 of Part – A and paragraphs 2, 9, 12, 14, 17 and 20 of Part – B.
4. We are obliged to state here that Mr. Naphade, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra, has submitted that this Court should not entertain the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and relegate the petitioners to the High Court so that they can seek their remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. We reject the said objection and entertain the writ petition.
5. Issue notice.
6. The State of Maharashtra shall file its counter affidavit within six weeks hence. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within three weeks therefrom.
7. List the writ petition after ten weeks.
8. As far as prayer for interim relief is concerned, it shall be taken on 21st September, 2016. Reply, if any, to the interim relief prayer be filed within two weeks hence.
W.P.(C) No. 793/2014, S.L.P.(C) No. 13764/2012, S.L.P.(C) No. 8992/2013, C.P.(C) No. 275/2014, C.P.(C) No. 248/2014 & S.L.P.(C) No. 15953/2012
9. List all these matters along with W.P.(C) No. 576 of 2016 after ten weeks.
———
