ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The challenge in these appeals is to an order passed by the High Court to the extent that it continued a ban on live bands running till the rules regulating the operation of the live bands are finalised by the Commissioner of Police. The Commissioner of Police had issued a notification on 24-5-2005 containing regulations relating to cabarets, discotheques and live bands. The order was called “the Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Entertainment (Bangalore City) Order, 2005”. 3. Writ petitions had been filed by the appellants challenging the order. The learned Single Judge quashed the order on the ground that the Commissioner of Police had not followed the statutory procedure of inviting objections from the general public although this was a mandatory requirement. The learned Single Judge, while quashing the impugned order, however, directed that the order would be treated as draft rules and granted 30 days’ time to the Commissioner to call for objections from the general public and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law within a period of two months. 4. Being aggrieved by the latter portion of the Single Judge’s order, the appellants preferred appeals. The Division Bench, however, affirmed the further directions given by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the rules were in the process of being finalised and the rules would regulate the grant of licences for the live bands with the object of maintaining law and order and, therefore, it would not be in public interest to allow these live bands to run till the rules were finalised and licences issued in accordance therewith. 5. The second ground for continuing the direction of the learned Single Judge was that the live bands had not been running since May 2005 and, therefore, no prejudice would be caused if they did not run for another two months or so till the rules were finalised. The appeals were, accordingly, dismissed. The appellants have approached this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. 6. Being prima facie satisfied as to the correctness of the appellants’ grievance, we issued notice to the State of Karnataka which is represented by counsel. An affidavit has also been filed by the State setting out the background in which the order was sought to be brought into force. 6. Being prima facie satisfied as to the correctness of the appellants’ grievance, we issued notice to the State of Karnataka which is represented by counsel. An affidavit has also been filed by the State setting out the background in which the order was sought to be brought into force. It is also contended that substantial justice had been done by the Court and that, therefore, this Court should not interfere under Article 136. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has, however, contended that there was no justification in law for the continuance of the further directions of the High Court particularly having regard to the fact that the operation of the live bands could not create any law and order problem. It is further submitted that it is a question of their livelihood of which they have been deprived for the last few months. 8. Having heard the submissions of the parties, we are of the view that the High Court having quashed the order should have permitted the live bands to continue. There was no basis in law for forbidding them. The further directions should not have been passed keeping in view the interest of the members of such live bands in earning their livelihood. At the same time, we cannot overlook the possibility of the requirement for some amount of control. 9. We have perused the impugned order and find that apart from certain infrastructural requirements, the impugned order had also sought to impose certain regulations on actual operation of the live bands, namely : “(h) that the proposed entertainment does not promote public gambling or the premises shall not be used as a gaming house or does not encourage prostitution or allow the use of narcotic substances or permit any other illegal activity; (i) that the licensee shall not organise or allow performance of shows which are immoral, obscene or indecent and ensure that there is no obscenity or indecency of dress, movement or gesture or that the performers indecently expose their person; (j) the licence shall not permit any obscene or objectionable posters or pictures to be exhibited;” 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that the appellants have no objection if these conditions are imposed upon them as it is their case that they were not indulging in any of such activities sought to be curbed by the aforesaid provisions. 11. We, therefore, dispose of the appeals by directing that the live bands shall be allowed to operate until the appropriate rules are framed by the Commissioner in modification of the observations of the learned Single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench and till the requisite licences are granted thereunder. In the meanwhile, the aforesaid three conditions will continue to operate as far as the live bands are concerned. 12. We make it clear that this order will be subject to such licensing regulations that may be framed by the Commissioner. *****