Telangana High Court
WA/2553/2005 of Skymoon Bar AND Restaurant, 2-1392/1/45, Vs The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, on 23 December 2005
SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL Nos. 2545, 2546, 2547, 2548, 2549, 2550, 2551, 2552, 2553, 2554, 2555, 2556 And 2557 OF 2005 Between: Chandana Bar & Restaurant, Tharnaka, Secunderabad, rep. by its Proprietor & Others. .. Appellants AND
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
HONOURABLE SRI G.S. SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT APPEAL Nos.
2545, 2546, 2547, 2548, 2549, 2550, 2551, 2552, 2553, 2554, 2555, 2556 And 2557 OF 2005
Between:
Chandana Bar & Restaurant, Tharnaka, Secunderabad, rep. by itsProprietor & Others.
.. Appellants
AND
The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City & Others.
.. Respondents
:: COMMON JUDGMENT ::
Counsel for the Appellants : Sri D.Prakash Reddy, appeared onbehalf of Sri Sudarshan Reddy Duddugunta.Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR HOME.
rd 23December, 2005
Per G.S. Singhvi, CJ
These appeals are directed against order dated 9.11.2005 passed bythe learned Single Judge whereby he disposed of the writ petitionsfiled by the appellants with the direction that respondent No.1 i.e.Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City should consider and passappropriate orders on the representations made by the petitioners(appellants herein) for being allowed to have live band/orchestra intheir Bar and Restaurant.
Learned counsel for appellants complains that respondent No.1has so far not passed orders on the representations made by hisclients and at the same time, his subordinate staff are interfering withtheir activities of running Bar and Restaurant.
Learned Government Pleader says that respondent No.1 isseized with the representations made by the appellants. He requestthat two weeks further time may be allowed to the officer to passappropriate orders in compliance of the direction given by the learnedSingle Judge. He further gave out that the authorities concerned willnot interfere with the running of Bar and Restaurant by the appellants.
In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel, theappeals are disposed of with the direction that respondent No.1 shall pass appropriate orders on the representations of the appellantswithin a maximum period of two weeks from today. Till then, theappellants shall be allowed to carry on their activities in accordancewith the licenses granted for running Bar and Restaurant. Therespondents shall also not interfere with the activity, if the appellantsuse live band or other instruments of music in the Bar or Restaurant.However, any other activities are carried out in the Bar or Restaurant,the authorities concerned shall be free to take appropriate action inaccordance with law.
If the appellants feel aggrieved by the orders which may bepassed by respondent No.1, then they shall be free to availappropriate legal remedy.
G.S. SINGHVI, CJ
23[rd] December, 2005
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J
ajr