Judgment 1. The Court: The writ petitioner claims to be the proprietor of Duke Bar and Restaurant. Such bar and restaurant is run from C.R. Avenue, Calcutta 700 072. The proprietorship of this bar and restaurant is seriously under dispute. But his grievance in the writ petition is only limited to non-renewal of the Police Licence to run his bar and restaurant and other ancillary licences flowing there from, like music and bar licences. 2. It is not disputed that these licences were granted to the writ petitioner for a considerable period of time and were valid till 31st March, 2006. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the respondent that these licences have not been renewed because of complaints received by other persons that they were the real owners of the premises or proprietors of the business. Such point is taken in paragraph 5 of the affidavit in opposition as under: "Save and except what appears from the admitted records I deny each and all the allegations made in paragraph No.2 of the said petition as if the same are set out and traversed adseriatim. I say in this connection that the petitioner is not proprietor of the bar or hotel as alleged or at all. I further state that the bar or hotel as referred to in the said paragraph was started jointly by Late Sisir Kumar Halder and Late Mihir Kumar Halder, being the erstwhile partners of the M/s. Nilmony Halder & Company. Actual owners are now their legal heirs. Shri Tripti Kumar Chatterjee was inducted as lessee in respect of the said business, which continued upto the year 1987 and then the lease deed expired." 3. I have examined the issue. The police is to consider the grant of a licence to a hotel or restaurant under section 22 of Bengal Act II of 1866 and section 39 of Bengal Act IV of 1866. These Acts contemplate "keepers of hotel, restaurant, public house etc." to be granted police licence, for the operation of these places in the interests of the public that is without disorder, drunkenness and unhygienic condition and so on. The other licences that is Bar Licence or Music Licence, according to the terms of the licences, are to be held by the holder of a hotel/restaurant licence that is the licence under the aforesaid Acts. The other licences that is Bar Licence or Music Licence, according to the terms of the licences, are to be held by the holder of a hotel/restaurant licence that is the licence under the aforesaid Acts. Hence these Bar and Music Licences naturally flow from the licence for running of the hotel and restaurant, subject to fulfillment of specific conditions of those licences. 4. The above Acts contemplate licence to "Keeper of a hotel or restaurant". It does not say "owner or occupier" of a premise or "proprietor" or "owner" of business. So, these Acts do not prescribe any detailed enquiry by the police on these issues. One has to be a keeper only. In other words one should be seen to be running a hotel or restaurant from a premise, permanently. 5. Since admittedly the writ petitioner had been granted these licences for a considerable period of time, there was no warrant not to renew the licences merely on the ground of some accusation or complaint filed by some interested persons. In such a case, unless an order of injunction was brought from a Civil Court, the police should not have normally refused to renew the licence on the ground that there was a rival claimant for the property or business. 6. In those circumstances, I direct that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, Kolkata, should consider the renewal application of the writ petitioner in respect of Duke Bar and Restaurant and the ancillary licences like the bar and music licences from 1st April, 2006 till date considering the above observations and in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. 7. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.