Judgment :- Jayachandra Reddy, J. The question of law that falls for consideration in this appeal by the State is whether a licence is necessary under section 21(1)(f) of the Hyderabad City Police Act and the Rules made there under for carrying on liquor business in twin cities inspite of a licence granted under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act. 2. Sambasiva Rao, J., as he then was, in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 872 of 1977 by his order dated 1st August, 1977, held that when once the Commissioner of Excise has licensed the premises and if a person carries on liquor business accordingly, there is no offence within the meaning of section 21(1)(f) of the Hyderabad City Police Act and that in fact no licence is necessary under the provisions of the Hyderabad City Police Act. When the present appeal came up before Madhusudan Rao, J. he found himself unable to agree with this view and accordingly referred the case to a Division Bench, and that is how it came up before us. 3. At the out set the facts that gave rise to his appeal may briefly be stated. The respondent is a partner of the firm R.K. Wines, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. He applied for fresh licence to the Commissioner of Police for sale of liquor. The Commissioner of Police instructed him to submit certain documents and a copy of the Commissioner’s memo, was also marked to the Inspector of Police, Narayanaguda. A report also submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police to the Commissioner of Police that the respondent was carrying on business. Thereupon, the Commissioner of Police ordered to prosecute the respondent from the date of commencement of the business. Accordingly the Sub-Inspector, Narayanaguda Police station visited the respondent’s shop and found the respondent running the business without a licence from the Commissioner of Police.Charge sheets under section21 read with section 76 of City Police Act, were filed alleging that the respondent was carrying on business without licence from the Commissioner of Police. The same were registered as Summary Trial Cases Nos 2734 to 1821 of 1979 on the file of the Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. The same were registered as Summary Trial Cases Nos 2734 to 1821 of 1979 on the file of the Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. The learned Magistrate relying on the decision of Sambasiva Rao, J. in Crl M. P.No. 872 of 1977 held that the respondent had a valid licence issued by the Excise Department and is doing business in the same place as per the Excise licence and therefore in view of the decision of the High Court in Crl. M.P. No. 872 of 1977 he cannot be found guilty of the offence under section 21 read with section 76 of the Hyderabad City Police Act, and accordingly acquitted him. 4. Sri G. Chandrasekhara Reddy, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State contends that the language of section 21 (1) (f) of the Hyderabad City Police Act is clear and as per the said provision the Commissioner can make necessary rules for issuing licences or for regulating certain matters mentioned therein including a liquor house and a wine shop, and accordingly the rules made by the Commissioner of Police under section 21 are in force and as per the said rules no person is competent to open or establish any liquor house or wine shop without obtaining a licence from the Commissioner of the City Police. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the respondent merely applied to the Commissioner of Police and without obtaining the same was found to be carrying on business and therefore he is liable for punishment. It has, therefore, to be seen whether a licence under section 21 (1) (f) of the Hyderabad City Police Act and the Rules made there under is necessary for carrying on liquor business. The relevant provisions of the Hyderabad City Police Act (hereinafter referred to as “‘the Act”) to be considered are, section 3 (h) defining “public place of entertainment”, and section 21 (1) (f) empowering the Commissioner to make Rules for granting licences and regulating certain other matters like traffic, etc. The relevant provisions of the Hyderabad City Police Act (hereinafter referred to as “‘the Act”) to be considered are, section 3 (h) defining “public place of entertainment”, and section 21 (1) (f) empowering the Commissioner to make Rules for granting licences and regulating certain other matters like traffic, etc. Section 3 (h) defines “public place of entertainment” thus: “‘Public place of entertainment’ means any enclosed or open place to which the public have access and where any kind of articles of food and drink are supplied for consumption by any person or for the profit of any person owning or having any interest in or managing such place and shall include a refreshment room, tea house,, liquor house, boarding house, lodging: house, hotel, tavern or sendhi, wine, ganja, toddy, bhong or opium shop.” This is an inclusive definition. The relevant part of the definition for the purpose of this case, if examined carefully, would show that any enclosed open place to which the public have access and where liquor is supplied for consumption comes within the meaning of “public place of entertainment” and the definition also includes a wine shop. It can therefore, be seen that the definition is wide enough so as to include a bar or a restaurant or any other shop where liquor is served for consumption and also any shop where liquor is sold. In other words, any place where liquor is either supplied or sold comes within the meaning of “place of public entertainment”. Section 21 (1) (f) of the Act reads thus: “21. Power to make rules for regulation of traffic and for preservation of order.-(1) The Commissioner of City Police, Hyderabad may, from time to time, make rules not inconsistent with this Act in respect of the following. Section 21 (1) (f) of the Act reads thus: “21. Power to make rules for regulation of traffic and for preservation of order.-(1) The Commissioner of City Police, Hyderabad may, from time to time, make rules not inconsistent with this Act in respect of the following. Such rules shall in case of clauses (b) and (c), be subject to the control of the Government and with regard to the remaining clauses, sanction of the Government shall be obtained prior to the enforcement of rules: (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) xxx xxx xxx (d) xxx xxx xxx (e) xxx xxx xxx (f) licensing for or regulating the following matters and where it is likely to cause inconvenience, delay, danger or damage to the residents or the persons passing in the vicinity, prohibiting; (i) the keeping of a place of public amusement or a place of public entertainment.” It can be seen that this provision of law empowers the Commissioner of City Police, Hyderabad, to make rules licensing or regulating the keeping of a place of public entertainment. That being so, the rules made by the Commissioner of Police under section 21 (1) (f) (i) of the Act which are in force, are attracted since they lay down that a licence is necessary from the Commissioner of Police for selling or supplying liquor, toddy and other intoxicants defined in the A. P. Excise Act in any public place. Consequently any person who wants to run a liquor house, viz., supplying liquor for consumption, or who wants to sell liquor in any shop, has to obtain the necessary licence under the Rules framed by the Commissioner of Police under section 21 (1) (f) of the Act, inspite of obtaining a licence from the Commissioner of Excise. 5. This aspect of the case has not been examined by Sambasiva Rao, J. A careful examination of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules made there under would show that the view taken by the learned Judge that when once the Commissioner of Excise had licensed the premises, there is no offence within the meaning of section 21 (1) (f) even if the party carries on business without obtaining a licence from the Commissioner of Police, is not correct and with great respect we are unable to agree with him. The mere fact that a person has obtained a licence from the Excise Commissioner as per the provisions of the A. P. Excise Act and the Rules made there under, does not absolve him from taking a licence from the Commissioner of Police. The provisions of the Act are meant to enforce law and order strictly and for effectively preventing and detecting crimes, for maintenance of peace etc. It is, therefore, necessary that the Commissioner of Police also should have some control over the public places where liquor is supplied or sold. There is somewhat a similar provision in the Madras City Police Act also. Section 35 of the Madras City Police Act, reads thus: “35. No enclosed place or building shall be used as an eating house, coffee-house, boarding-house, hotel, lodging-house, tavern wine, beer or spirit shop, arrack or toddy shop, gymnasium or fencing-school, or for the sale or consumption of any intoxicating drug or liquor without a licence from the Commissioner..........” It can, therefore be seen that the object of empowering the Commissioner of Police to issue licences for selling or supplying liquor in any place to which public have access is to enable the City Police to maintain law and order effectively. Therefore, any person who wants to carry on liquor business either by supplying liquor in a liqur house like bar and restaurant or by selling liquor in a shop, should not only obtain a licence from the Commissioner of Excise, but also a licence from the Commissioner of Police. 6. The learned Counsel for the respondent contends that it will work great hardship if a person who wants to carry on liquor business has to obtain licence from two different authorities and some times there may not be an agreement between the two authorities about the time and place of running the business. We are unable to agree. Unless these rules are struck down as ultra vires on some ground or other they have to be enforced so long as they are in force. Further, it is a matter of common knowledge that in many instances where a person wants to carry on a business he has to obtain licences from more than one authority. In W. P. No. 934 of 1973 and Crl. Further, it is a matter of common knowledge that in many instances where a person wants to carry on a business he has to obtain licences from more than one authority. In W. P. No. 934 of 1973 and Crl. M. P. No. 3259 of 1972 and batch, Chinnappa Reddy, J., in a common judgment held that the rules made under section 21 (1) of the Act are valid. That was a case where the petitioner having applied for a licence to open a lodging house opened the same and commenced business even before the licence is granted. A prosecution was launched. The petitioner filed the writ petition contending that no licence was necessary and also filed Crl. M. Ps. for quashing the prosecution. During the pendency of the writ petition the Commissioner of Police passed an order rejecting the petitioner’s application for grant of a licence. Chinnappa Reddy, J., while rejecting the contention that no licence was necessary for the petitioner’s lodging house, held that a licence was necessary for the lodging house as laid down under section 21 (1) of the City Police Act and the Rules made there under. The learned Judge however, quashed the criminal proceedings holding that there was delay in disposing of the application filed by the petitioner for a licence, that the petitioner cannot be blamed and that in the interests of justice it was necessary to quash the proceedings. In the instant case the petitioner as a matter of fact applied for a licence on 13th October, 1978, but the licence was granted on 26th October, 1979, on the same application for the subsequent year and the prosecution was launched in respect of the year commencing from 1st October, 1978. It can thus be seen that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the delay in granting the licence by the Commissioner of Police. However this is an appeal against acquittal and in view of the fact that the licence was in fact granted subsequently on the same application for the succeeding year, we think it is not a fit case for interference at this distance of time. The Criminal appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Criminal appeal dismissed.