Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court recently ordered an Assistant Police Inspector of Maharashtra police to pay Rs. 25000 from his salary account to a canteen owner for causing harassment and disobeying the court’s order.

A division bench of Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Y.G. Khobragade was hearing the petition against the high-handedness of the police for forcibly shutting down the canteen of the petitioner during night hours situated at the S.T. bus stand in Beed district.

In 2014, the High Court ruled in favour of the petitioner clarifying that the restrictions of not operating the shop after 11.00 p.m. will not apply in view of the exemptions provided under the Maharashtra Shops and Establishment Act and the Bombay Police Act, 1951.

Advocate J. M. Murkute for the petitioner contended that the Maharashtra Shops and Establishment Act itself exempts stalls and canteens at the railway stations, airports and the state transport bus stations from the application of the provision relating to opening and closing hours of restaurants and eating houses.

The High Court came down heavily on the state police and observed “rather than ensuring that a Patrolling vehicle being kept available for protecting the citizens who reach the bus stand in the late hours after reaching the destination, the …. (police) appears to be blaming the petitioner for operating his canteen”.

In its report, the police stated that the canteen should be shut down as gundas come to the canteen during the night hours in a drunken stage, harass ladies and cause thefts.

“We find that the copies of the First Information Reports placed on record have absolutely nothing to do with the functioning of this canteen,” said the High Court while rejecting the contentions of the police report.

In its order, the High Court said that it could have recommended disciplinary action against the erring police official but instead imposed a cost of Rs.25,000 to be paid to the canteen owner from the salary account of the police inspector. 

“We therefore direct that as long as the petitioner is exempted and …..he has the license - contract with the M.S.R.T.C. to operate the canteen, no authority would interfere in the functioning of his canteen, without following the due process of law,” the court said. 

Cause Title- Ram vs State of Maharashtra