Judgment : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 3/6-09-2012 passed by respondent No. 1 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and the order dated 29-02-2012 passed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 thereby refusing to grant licence to start and run the Social Club/Card Room in favour of the petitioner. 3. The facts leading to file this writ petition, as disclosed in the writ petition, are as under:- The petitioner is registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 with the aim and object to open Social Club for amusement of its members. The petitioner herein, is the original appellant in appeal filed before respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The said appeal was filed challenging the order dated 29-02-2012 passed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Respondent No.1 herein, is the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, respondent No. 2 is the Minister for Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mumbai, respondent No. 3 is the Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad and respondent No. 4 is the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner is the trust, which came to be registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 on 22-03-2010 with aim and object to open Social Club for amusement of its members. The said trust came to be registered with seven members in its Managing Body and there are about 500 members of the petitioner trust as on today. The petitioner trust made an application with the Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad on 07122009 for grant of Premises Licence for starting Social Club for amusement of its members. It was stated in the said application that, Games like Carom, playing cards etc., will be played in the social club for amusement of its members. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of the said application at Exhibit-A of the compilation of the writ petition. In reply to the application filed by the petitioner, respondent No. 3 by his letter dated 06-01-2010 directed the petitioner to submit documents as mentioned in the said letter. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of the said application at Exhibit-A of the compilation of the writ petition. In reply to the application filed by the petitioner, respondent No. 3 by his letter dated 06-01-2010 directed the petitioner to submit documents as mentioned in the said letter. The petitioner by its forwarding/covering letter dated 04-06-2010 submitted Registration Certificate, Shop Act Licence, Certificate issued by the Health Department, No objection certificate issued by the Electrical Inspector and No objection certificate issued by the Fire Brigade to the respondent No.3. The petitioner alongwith writ petition has annexed copies of the letter issued by respondent No. 3 dated 06-01-2010 and copy of letter dated 04-06-2010 written by the petitioner to respondent No. 3 alongwith the copies of necessary documents which were submitted to respondent No. 3. They are placed at Exhibit-B collectively. It is further case of the petitioner that, in spite of submitting all documents as directed by respondent No. 3, no further action was taken by respondent No. 3, therefore, again on 18-08-2010 the petitioner made application to respondent No. 3 informing that, he has complied with all the necessary documents and as per relevant rules, it is necessary to take decision by respondent No. 3 within 60 days and if the decision is not taken, in that case, there is deeming provision that, premises licence is deemed to have been granted in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner informed respondent No. 3 that, in view of deeming provision, he is starting said social club/card room. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of the application dated 18-08-2010 submitted by the petitioner to respondent No. 3 at Exhibit-C. 5. It is further case of the petitioner that, though the petitioner complied with all the necessary documents and formalities as asked by the respondent No.3 by letter dated 04-06-2010, no further action was taken by respondent No. 3. After about more than four months, respondent No. 3 passed the order dated 18-10-2010 informing that, the application of the petitioner for grant of social club/card room licence is rejected. It is the case of the petitioner that, respondent No. 3 has rejected the said application on the ground that, the petitioner cannot be given licence only for card room and it is necessary to establish whole sport complex. It is the case of the petitioner that, respondent No. 3 has rejected the said application on the ground that, the petitioner cannot be given licence only for card room and it is necessary to establish whole sport complex. Only after establishing sport institution, alongwith another sport activities, the authority will consider to grant permission to open social club/card room by granting licence. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of order dated 18-10-2010 passed by respondent No. 3 at Exhibit-D of the compilation of the writ petition. It is further case of the petitioner that, after receiving such communication from respondent No. 3 at Exhibit-D, the petitioner herein, on 20-10-2010 made an application to respondent No. 3 informing that, permission be given alongwith Games like Carom, Chess etc. Along with the said application, the petitioner annexed copy of the registration certificate of the petitioner under Societies Registration Act, 1860. The petitioner again filed application on 02-11-2010 with respondent NO. 3 praying therein for review of the decision dated 18-10-2010 rejecting the application of the petitioner. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of the said application dated 20-10-2010 and 02-11-2010 submitted by the petitioner to respondent No. 3 at Exhibit-E. It is further case of the petitioner that, the petitioner filed criminal Writ Petition No. 1054 of 2010 before the High Court seeking certain directions against the respondents to decide the application dated 02-11-2010 submitted by the petitioner, however, said writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to take remedy of appeal to challenge the order dated 18-10-2010 passed by the respondent No.3. Accordingly, the petitioner filed appeal before respondent No. 2 on 04-01-2011 challenging the order dated 18-10-2010 passed by respondent No. 3 rejecting the application for grant of premises licence for starting social club/card room. The said appeal was numbered as Appeal No. 06 of 2011. The respondent No. 2 rejected the said appeal thereby confirming the order dated 18-10-2010. Copy of the said order is placed on record by the petitioner at Exhibit-G alongwith the writ petition. 6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 30-03-2011 passed by respondent No. 2, preferred Writ Petition No. 4055 of 2011 before the High Court. The respondents filed their affidavit in reply in the said writ petition. Copy of the said order is placed on record by the petitioner at Exhibit-G alongwith the writ petition. 6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 30-03-2011 passed by respondent No. 2, preferred Writ Petition No. 4055 of 2011 before the High Court. The respondents filed their affidavit in reply in the said writ petition. It is further case of the petitioner that, the said writ petition was allowed and the authority was directed to consider the application of the petitioner afresh to open and run social club with card room. The copy of the said order is placed on record by the petitioner at Exhibit-H. It is further case of the petitioner that, the petitioner again filed application alongwith order of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 405 of 2011 to respondent No. 3 on 12-08-2011. The copy of the said application is placed on record at Exhibit-I. It is the case of the petitioner that, though the High Court specifically observed in the order dated 04-08-2011 while disposing the Writ Petition No. 4055 of 2011 that, the Statute does not lay down any condition for starting a social club with card room dehors the other sports activities and therefore, the authorities could not have rejected the application on the said ground, the respondent No.1 again issued letter dated 17-10-2011 to the petitioner directing to submit map showing place to be used for a specific sport. The authorities further directed to submit information in respect of members of the said club. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of letter dated 17-10-2011 issued by respondent No.1 to the petitioner at Exhibit-J. It is further case of the petitioner that, in view of the letter issued by respondent No. 4, the petitioner submitted affidavit to respondent No. 3 giving requisite information alongwith map of location where the petitioner intends to start the social club. The petitioner has also given information in respect of 7 members of the petitioner trust and stated that, the income tax returns of the said members cannot be made available as they are not in service. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of the said affidavit alongwith the map submitted by the petitioner with respondent No. 3, at Exhibit-K of the writ petition. 7. The petitioner has placed on record the copy of the said affidavit alongwith the map submitted by the petitioner with respondent No. 3, at Exhibit-K of the writ petition. 7. It is further case of the petitioner that, the petitioner has given map of new location as earlier location where the petitioner intended to start the social club the area was not sufficient to start the same with all sports. It is further case of the petitioner that, the petitioner has changed the said location as respondent No. 3 initially passed the order refusing to grant licence on the ground that, the licence cannot be given only for card room and it is necessary to establish whole sport society. 8. It is further case of the petitioner that, the reminder was given to respondent No. 3 on 17-11-2011 to decide the application of the petitioner otherwise they will have to approach the High Court in view of the order dated 04-08-2011 in Writ Petition No. 4055 of 2011. It is further case of the petitioner that, on 23-11-2011 the petitioner submitted necessary documents with respondent No. 3 and requested him to take a decision. The copies of said application dated 17-11-2011 and 23-11-2011 submitted by the petitioner to respondent No. 3 are placed on record at Exhibit-L. It is the case of the petitioner that, in spite of direction of the High Court to respondent No. 3 to decide the application submitted by the petitioner within period of two months, respondent No. 3 did not decide the same, therefore, the petitioner was constrained to file Contempt Petition No. 63 of 2012 before the High Court. The High Court issued notice in the said contempt petition on 07-02-2012. The respondent No. 3 after receiving the said notice in Contempt Petition filed by the petitioner, hurriedly issued letter/order dated 29-02-2012 rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of licence for social club on erroneous reasons without hearing the petitioner. It is held by the respondent No. 3 that, the petitioner did not submit audit report of the last year of the society and one N.C. No. 407/2010 is registered against the petitioner under Section 33-B of the Bombay Police Act in which the Court has imposed fine of Rs.900/-. The copy of the letter/order dated 29-02-2012 passed by respondent No. 4 is placed on record at Exhibit-M alongwith the writ petition. The copy of the letter/order dated 29-02-2012 passed by respondent No. 4 is placed on record at Exhibit-M alongwith the writ petition. 9. It is further case of the petitioner that, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3129/2012 before this Court challenging the order dated 29-02-2012. This Court disposed of the said writ petition with liberty to file appeal. The appeal was filed before the appellate authority. The petitioner has filed on record copy of the order dated 09-04-2012 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 3129/2012 at Exhibit-E alongwith writ petition. Respondent No. 1 rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner on 3/6092012 confirming the order of respondent No. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that, respondent NO. 3 without properly considering the grounds raised in the appeal and earlier order passed in W.P. No. 4055 of 2011, has rejected the said appeal. 10. It is the case of the petitioner that, the State Government has introduced the Rules for Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Amusement, Including Cabaret Performances, Discotheque, Games, Pool Game Parlors, Amusement Parlors, providing Computer Games, Virtual Reality Games, Cyber Cafes, Games with Net connectivity, Bowling Alleys, Card Rooms, Social Clubs, Sports Clubs, Melas and Tamashas Rules, 1960 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter called as "the Rules of 1960") for granting licences in view of Clauses (w) (W) (WA) (X) and (Y) of sub section (1) of Section 33 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. The petitioner submits that, in view of the said Rules, procedure has been contemplated for granting various licences and as far as present case is concerned, the petitioner had applied for premises licence for public amusement. The petitioner submits that, in view of the said Rules, procedure has been contemplated for granting various licences and as far as present case is concerned, the petitioner had applied for premises licence for public amusement. The petitioner submits that, following are the relevant definitions to be taken into consideration in order to decide the present Writ Petition: (d-1) "Game" means any video game, which is controlled or operated by any means, either manually or otherwise or any other amusement or games by whatever names called, provided by the Licensee in any premises, which are used or intended to be used as a Places of Public Amusement or entertainment and to which any member of the pubic has accesses and includes:- (vii) "Card Room or Card Clubs" means such outlets where card games are provided for amusement only to members; (viii) "Social Club or Trust" means any club or Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (Bom. XXI or 1950) provided any type of amusement on its premises. (j) "Premises" means any place which is used or is intended to be used as a public amusement or any place other than a cinema theatre, wherein musical, dancing, dramatic, mimetic, theatrical or other performances of public amusement, exhibition or diversion or game are staged; and also circus, funfair and any place where amusement in the form of Pool Tables, Computer Games, Virtual Reality Games, Cyber Cafes providing Computer and/or net connectivity as amusement and also all places giving computer/Digital Versatile Disc/Compact Disc, Screen Displays as amusement, bowling alleys, card rooms, clubs, social clubs, sports clubs, trusts, Housing societies, hotels and eating houses, which provide any of the amusements listed in sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of the Rules. It is the contention of the petitioner that, in view of the definition (d-1) (vii) (viii) reproduced herein above, Game includes Card Room or Card Clubs for amusement to the members and further includes Social Club or Trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 providing amusement to its members. The petitioner states that, further definition of "premises" includes a place used for public amusement like Card Rooms, Clubs, and Social Clubs etc. The petitioner further states that, in view of the afore mentioned provisions, the application can be made for granting Premises Licence which includes Card Rooms and Social Clubs. The petitioner states that, further definition of "premises" includes a place used for public amusement like Card Rooms, Clubs, and Social Clubs etc. The petitioner further states that, in view of the afore mentioned provisions, the application can be made for granting Premises Licence which includes Card Rooms and Social Clubs. It is further case of the petitioner, accordingly, the petitioner made an application for grant of premises licence for starting social club/card room amusement for its members. The petitioner further states that, procedure for grant of Premises Licence is given under Chapter III of the Rules of 1960. Rule 108 is in respect of application to be made for Premises Licence and documents to be accompanied with application, while Rule 108-A is in respect of requirements to be fulfilled for grant of Premises. 11. It is further case of the petitioner that, initially the petitioner has made a simple application with respondent No. 3 but by the letter dated 06-01-2010, respondent No. 2 directed the petitioner to comply with all the documents as required to be accompanied alongwith application. The petitioner submitted all the documents with respondent No. 3 on 04-06-2010. The petitioner submitted necessary documents for grant of Premises Licence and therefore, under Rule 109 of the said Rules, respondent No.3 ought to have granted licence under Form "D". It is further case of the petitioner that, similarly, Rule 110 provides powers vested with respondent No.3 Licensing Authority to refuse Licence. The Rule 110 reads as under: "110. Power to refuse Licence: The Licensing Authority may refuse a Premises Licence, if 1. (a) The Premises Licence is likely to cause law and order problem or cause or add to traffic problem in the locality or cause inconvenience to the residents of that locality and the public; (b) The Licensing Authority may refuse a Premises Licence if he is satisfied after such enquiry as he thinks fit that a person of the premises in question is not fit unsuitable to grant the said Licence." 12. It is further case of the petitioner that, High Court in W.P. No. 4050 of 2011 has specifically observed that, no provision could be pointed out wherein the permission to open and run a Social Club alongwith Card Room cannot be granted, unless and until the other sports activities are also undertaken. It is further case of the petitioner that, High Court in W.P. No. 4050 of 2011 has specifically observed that, no provision could be pointed out wherein the permission to open and run a Social Club alongwith Card Room cannot be granted, unless and until the other sports activities are also undertaken. The petitioner further submits that, the High Court in the said writ petition has further observed that, authorities while considering the application for permission can lay down restrictions as are permissible in the Statute and the Rules, but not the one which are not recognized by the Statute and the Rules and therefore, the High Court directed the authorities to consider the application of the petitioner to open and run social club with card room as stated in the application afresh according to the provisions of the Statute and Rules governing the said application. It is further case of the petitioner that, in spite of specific observation by the High Court in the afore mentioned order dated 04-08-2011, the respondents again on erroneous and impermissible reasons refused to grant licence in favour of the petitioner for starting social club. According to the petitioner, the reasons given in the order dated 29-02-2012 and 03/06-09-2012 does not find place in the Act and Rules, and therefore, same reasons are illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law and contrary to the judgment and order dated 04-08-2011 passed by the High Court in W.P. No. 4055 of 2011. According to the petitioner, the respondent authorities are deliberately prolonging to issue licence in favour of the petitioner by rejecting on erroneous grounds which are not available to the authorities under relevant rules or any other legal provisions made by the Legislature. It is further case of the petitioner that, the order dated 29-02-2012 issued by respondent No. 4 Deputy Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad is without authority of law, same is illegal and arbitrary and liable to be quashed and set aside. It is further case of the petitioner that, the order dated 29-02-2012 issued by respondent No. 4 Deputy Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad is without authority of law, same is illegal and arbitrary and liable to be quashed and set aside. It is further case of the petitioner that, Rule 110 gives power to respondent No. 3 Licensing Authority to refuse the licence only under the condition that, if the Premises Licence is likely to cause law and order problem or cause or add to traffic problem in the locality or cause inconvenience to the residents of that locality and the public and he is dissatisfied after such enquiry as he thinks fit that a person of the premises in question is not fit, unsuitable to grant the said Licence. In the present case, there was full inquiry made by the respondent authorities by recording the statements of neighbouring residents and without any grievance of the said residents, the respondent authorities erroneously rejected the application refusing to grant licence for starting club/card room. It is the case of the petitioner that, the respondents did not refuse the licence on any of the grounds as mentioned in Rule 110 and has travelled beyond the same by giving reasons which does not find place in the rules. According to the petitioner, grant of licence to the petitioner by respondent No. 3 should not cause any inconvenience to the residents of the locality and therefore, the permission for starting social club/card room far away from residential area is itself good ground for grant of licence and said fact has not been considered by the respondent authorities. It is further case of the petitioner that, the respondent authorities are predetermined to reject the said application of the petitioner, as the petitioner has approached the High Court by filing the Contempt Petition. It is specific case of the petitioner that, grounds which are given in the impugned order for refusing to grant licence for starting club/card room is erroneous and without authority of law, as Rules of 1960 does not provide or permit to reject the licence on the grounds which are given by the respondents. It is specific case of the petitioner that, grounds which are given in the impugned order for refusing to grant licence for starting club/card room is erroneous and without authority of law, as Rules of 1960 does not provide or permit to reject the licence on the grounds which are given by the respondents. The petitioner has complied with all required documents as required under Rule 110 for grant of licence, despite the same respondent authorities have erroneously rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of licence to start and run social club/card on frivolous grounds. The order passed by the authority amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. No oral hearing was given to the petitioner while passing the order by respondent No.3. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the order passed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the orders dated 29-02-2012 and 3/06-09-2012 passed by the respondents refusing to grant licence for starting social club/card room is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g), 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and same are liable to be quashed and set aside. 13. The petitioner states that, respondent No.1 has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner on the same grounds which are stated by the respondent No. 3 in the order dated 29-02-2012. Therefore, according to the petitioner, there is no independent application of mind by respondent No.1 to the grounds in the appeal by the petitioner. 14. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner society is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It is submitted that, the petitioner herein, filed application for grant of premises licence for starting social club/card room on 07-12-2009. It is submitted that, in response to the said application, respondent No. 3 asked the petitioner to file certain documents. In due regard to the compliance of the letter dated 06-01-2010 by respondent No. 3, the petitioner herein, filed registration certificate, Shop Act Licence, map, proof of land, certificate of Health Department, certificate of Electricity Inspector, and certificate of Fire Brigade. It is submitted that, there was total compliance of letter dated 06-01-2010 written by respondent No. 3 asking the petitioner to file certain documents. It is submitted that, there was total compliance of letter dated 06-01-2010 written by respondent No. 3 asking the petitioner to file certain documents. It is submitted that, in spite of submitting such documents and making compliance of the requirements stated in the letter dated 06-01-2010 by respondent No. 3, respondent No.3 had not taken any steps till 18-08-2010. Therefore, the petitioner herein, requested respondent No. 3 to grant licence as requested in application dated 07-12-2009. It is further submitted that, it was specifically stated in the communication to respondent No. 3 that, if permission is not granted within 60 days from the date of application, in view of deeming provision the petitioner is entitled to start social club and accordingly, it was informed to respondent No. 3 that, the petitioner in view of deeming provision, is starting social club. It is submitted that, in spite of total compliance of the requirements stated by respondent No. 3 by letter dated 06-01-2010, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad issued letter to the petitioner on 18-10-2010 informing that, the application of the petitioner for grant of licence is rejected. It was further stated in the said letter that, the petitioner should establish whole sports society alongwith other games. According to the Senior Counsel for the petitioner, once all requirements were fulfilled, there was no occasion for the respondents to search new grounds that, the petitioner should establish whole sports society alongwith other games and thereafter only licence will be granted. It is submitted that, such exercise of powers by the authorities is to find out reasons to reject the application of the petitioner by hook or crook. It is submitted that, the petitioner had already spent huge amount to comply the requirements stated in the letter dated 06-01-2010 by the Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad. Again on 20-10-2010 the petitioner made arrangement for other games by spending huge amount and filed application to respondent No. 3 requesting to give permission alongwith other games, however, no steps were taken, therefore, the petitioner again filed application to respondent No. 3 on 02-11-2010 requesting to grant licence as he has complied with the requirements under Rule 108 of the Rules of 1960. It is further submitted that, the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 18-10-2010 passed by respondent No. 3, rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of licence, has been mechanically rejected by respondent No. 3. It is submitted that, being aggrieved by the order of the Minister of Home Department and also respondent No. 3, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 4055 of 2011 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 04-08-2011 with specific observation that, Statute does not lay down any condition for starting social club with other sport activities and therefore, directed the authorities to consider the application for permission as per statute and rules. The Senior Counsel invited my attention to the afore mentioned order of this Court and submitted that, this Court in paragraph-5 of the said order has specifically observed that, when the statute does not lay down any condition for starting social club with card room dehors other sport activities, then the authorities could not have rejected the application on the said ground. Learned Senior Counsel further invited my attention to paragraph-6 of the said order in which this Court has observed that, the authorities while considering the application for permission can lay down the restrictions as are permissible in the statute and rules but not one which are not recognized by the statute and rules. It is submitted that, with the above observations, this Court disposed of the said writ petition and directed the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner afresh and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two months from 04-08-2011. 15. It is further submitted that, in spite of order passed by the High Court on 04-08-2011, directing respondent No. 3 to consider and dispose of the application of the petitioner, said was not disposed of within two months as directed by the High Court. It is submitted that, respondent No. 4 issued letter to the petitioner again asking to submit new map alongwith all information in respect of members, their business, income tax returns for last three years etc. It is submitted that, no new conditions can be imposed once initial required documents/compliance is made by the applicant. It is submitted that, respondent No. 4 issued letter to the petitioner again asking to submit new map alongwith all information in respect of members, their business, income tax returns for last three years etc. It is submitted that, no new conditions can be imposed once initial required documents/compliance is made by the applicant. It is further submitted that, the petitioner submitted affidavit to respondent No. 3 on 31-10-2011 stating therein that, the members have no any political connection and they are educated unemployed persons and therefore, there is no any income returns available for last three years. It is submitted that, on 17-11-2011 the petitioner sent reminder to respondent No. 3 requesting to take decision in view of the order passed by this Court. It is submitted that, on 23-11-2011 the petitioner gave second reminder to respondent No. 3 and also submitted all necessary documents as per rules, however, there was no response, therefore, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 63 of 2012 as respondent No. 3 did not dispose of the application within two months from the date of order passed in Writ Petition No. 405 of 2011. It is submitted that, Hon'ble High Court on 07-02-2012 issued notice to respondent No. 3 i.e. Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad in Contempt Petition No. 63 of 2012. It is submitted that, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 immediately on receiving notice in Contempt Petition rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of licence on the grounds contrary to the statute and rules. It is further submitted that, the petitioner filed Writ Petition NO. 3129 of 2012 challenging the order of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It is submitted that, the said writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate remedy before the State Government and accordingly, the appeal was filed by the petitioner. However, the appellate authority mechanically endorsed the order passed by the Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad. It is submitted that, the respondent authorities have rejected the application filed by the petitioner on the grounds which are totally contrary to the Rules of 1960. It is submitted that, the application is rejected on extraneous grounds. The grounds for rejection in the impugned order do not find place in Rule 110 of the said Rules. It is submitted that, the respondent authorities have rejected the application filed by the petitioner on the grounds which are totally contrary to the Rules of 1960. It is submitted that, the application is rejected on extraneous grounds. The grounds for rejection in the impugned order do not find place in Rule 110 of the said Rules. It is submitted that, the petitioner has complied with all necessary documents as provided in Rule 110-A of the said Rules and therefore, licence ought to have been granted. It is submitted that, the respondent authorities did not follow the directions given by the High Court in its order dated 04-08-2011 and proceeded to pass the order contrary to the directions. It is submitted that, statute and rules does not provide for submitting income tax returns, source of income, audit report of the society and therefore, the said grounds for rejecting the application for grant of premises licence are erroneous. It is submitted that, the ground for rejection of the application that, the petitioner started club without permission and therefore, N.C. No. 407 of 2012 was registered on 22-08-2010 under section 33(b) of the Bombay Police Act is also not tenable as the petitioner had informed respondent No. 3 by letter dated 18-08-2010 that in view of deeming provision he is starting the said club. Also earlier order of rejection was dated 18-10-2010 and in the said order, said ground was not taken for rejecting the application. It is further submitted that, though the petitioner had taken specific ground of deeming permission till date, no reply is filed to the said contention by respondents and N.C. No. 407 of 2012 was registered against the petitioner. It is submitted that, such exercise of powers by the authorities is only to harass the petitioner and reject the application of the petitioner by finding out the reasons. It is submitted that, such exercise of powers by the authorities without having basis in the relevant rules and asking for requirements which are not traceable either in the Rules or in Bombay Police Act would amount to malafide exercise of the powers. It is submitted that, such exercise of powers by the authorities without having basis in the relevant rules and asking for requirements which are not traceable either in the Rules or in Bombay Police Act would amount to malafide exercise of the powers. It is submitted that, not only that, respondent No. 3 has harassed the petitioner by asking the documents which are not contemplated under any relevant rules but even not respected the order passed by this Court in which it was observed that, the authorities cannot ask for fulfilling the conditions since statute does not lay down any condition for starting social club with card room dehors other sport activities or the authorities cannot lay down restrictions which are not in the statute and the rules. It is further submitted that, respondent No. 3 rejected the application after the order passed by this Court in earlier W.P. No. 4055 of 2011 as the petitioner filed C.P. No. 63 of 2012 against respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It is submitted that, additional grounds even by way of affidavit in reply supporting the order rejecting for grant of licence cannot be considered in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in case of MohinderSingh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 . It is further submitted that, the authorities are misinterpreted Rule 110(b) of the said Rules, thereby stating that, as the petitioner is not a fit or suitable for grant of licence and therefore, the application is rejected. Rule 110(b) of the said Rules has to be read with section 33(7) of the Bombay Police Act showing that, the application is made by a person of notoriously bad character for holding him as not fit or suitable for grant of licence. The respondent authorities have not shown that, the petitioner is a person of notoriously bad character for holding him as not fit or suitable for grant of licence. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to the exposition of the Supreme Court in the case of Global Energy Ltd. and another vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, reported in (2009) 15 SCC 570 in order to explain the meaning of 'not fit person'. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to the exposition of the Supreme Court in the case of Global Energy Ltd. and another vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, reported in (2009) 15 SCC 570 in order to explain the meaning of 'not fit person'. Relying upon the said authoritative pronouncement, the learned Senior Counsel submits that, such provision whether the applicant is a fit and proper person, was under the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Procedure, Terms and Conditions for Grant of Trading Licence and Other Related Matters) Regulations, 2004. The Supreme Court held that, Regulation 6-A is imperative in character. It is couched in negative language. It provides for disqualifications. Indisputably, a subordinate legislation should be read in the context of the Act. Thus said Regulation 6-A should be construed in terms of the requirements contained in Section 52 of the Act, namely technical requirement, capital adequacy, requirement and creditworthiness for being an electricity trader. It affects the creditworthiness of the applicant. Therefore, the Supreme Court, in the facts of that case, held that, Regulation 6-A in effect confers powers/discretion on matters of licensing even in public hearing. Such relevant factors which provide for the criteria laid down in Regulation 6-A could be brought on record. Section 15, however, empowers the Commission to specify the form and manner of the application and the fees that is required to be attached. The parliamentary object must be read in the context of the Preamble. Ultimately, in paragraph-77 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court declared the clauses (b) and (f) of Regulation 6-A ultra vires the Constitution of India as also the Act and the Commissioner is directed to consider the matter from the same stage. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying upon the pleadings in the petition, grounds taken therein, relevant provisions, reported judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court cited across the bar and the written notes of arguments placed on record, would submit that, this petition may be allowed. 16. The learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondents invited my attention to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on 3rd November, 2011. It is submitted that, the allegation that, the respondent No. 3 was deliberately prolonging to take decision on the application filed by the petitioner is specifically denied by answering respondents. 16. The learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondents invited my attention to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on 3rd November, 2011. It is submitted that, the allegation that, the respondent No. 3 was deliberately prolonging to take decision on the application filed by the petitioner is specifically denied by answering respondents. It is submitted that, the application of the petitioner is decided vide order dated 29th February, 2012. It is submitted that, the respondent No. 3 has tendered unconditional apology before this Court in Contempt Petition NO. 63 of 2012 in Writ Petition No. 4055 of 2011 for not deciding the application within time. It is submitted that, all seven members of the trust were required to submit their income tax returns disclosing their source of income for organizing funds for running social club. It is submitted that, however, in spite of giving ample opportunity, they have not submitted the income tax returns. It is submitted that, the petitioner has changed location of club for which they have to pay Rs.11,00,000/-and therefore, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 thought it fit to ask the petitioner about the source of income for organizing funds for running social club. It is further submitted that, one case is registered against the members of the club in Kranti Chowk police station, Aurangabad on 22nd August, 2010 bearing N.C. No. 407 of 2010 under Section 33(b)(1)/131 of the Bombay Police Act, for which the petitioner has pleaded guilty before the Court and paid Rs.900/-as fine amount. As such, considering all these aspects, the application of the petitioner was rejected. It is submitted that, in pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the writ petition, the respondent No.3 has considered the application of the petitioner and same is decided as per provisions of the relevant Act and Rules. It is submitted that, the petitioner Sanstha has applied for licence for running social club. Seven members of the petitioner trust are not disclosing their source of income for organizing funds for running social club and this create suspicion about their status in the club. 17. The learned A.G.P. invited my attention to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. Seven members of the petitioner trust are not disclosing their source of income for organizing funds for running social club and this create suspicion about their status in the club. 17. The learned A.G.P. invited my attention to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on 19th January, 2013 and submitted that, the application of the petitioner was rejected on the grounds that, the petitioner has not submitted income tax returns as well as the petitioner has not shown source of income of the members of the society as well as the petitioner has not shown source in respect of Rs.11,00,000/-. It is submitted that, it is a ardent duty of the licencing authority to verify the antecedent and back ground of the applicant. One of the applicable criteria to know about financial condition and financial proprietary of applicant is to inquire income tax returns of the individuals. Financial soundness of applicant to run a social club is one of the prerequisite for granting the licence from licencing authority. It is submitted that, the petitioner has not submitted audit report. It is further submitted that, there is no statutory provision either in the Bombay Police Act or under the Rules for Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Amusements (Other than Cinemas) and Performances for Public Amusement, including Melas and Tamashas 1960 wherein the authority would compel to the applicant to comply the above said conditions. It is submitted that, the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Crime), Aurangabad City was appointed for enquiry regarding the application of the petitioner for social club/card room. It is submitted that, said officer has submitted his report on 14th November, 2011. Again he was asked to verify documents and to submit report by visiting the spot. It is submitted that, the petitioner has changed location of club and after detailed verification of location and documents concerned, the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Crime) Aurangabad city has submitted final report on 31st December, 2011. It is submitted that, as per statement of Smt. Sonam Raju Tanwani, it appeared that, the petitioner trust has taken shop on rent on agreement for amount of Rs.1,00,000/-per month, for period of 11 months from 1st July, 2010 to 31st May, 2011. As such, as per statement of landlady Mrs. It is submitted that, as per statement of Smt. Sonam Raju Tanwani, it appeared that, the petitioner trust has taken shop on rent on agreement for amount of Rs.1,00,000/-per month, for period of 11 months from 1st July, 2010 to 31st May, 2011. As such, as per statement of landlady Mrs. Sonam Raju Tanwani, it was significant for the answering respondents to know source of income of the petitioner society. It is submitted that, after making detailed inquiry verifying record and documents submitted by the officer as well as documents given by the petitioner, it is found that Rule 110(b) of the above said rules, empowers to the licencing authority that, after inquiry if the authority is satisfied that, the petitioner is not fit person of the premises in question and it will not proper to grant licence for the purpose which the petitioner has applied. It is submitted that, Rule 108 and 108(A) gives power to the authorities to ask the certain things from the trust or the person who applied for licence. Therefore, relying upon the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the learned A.G.P. would submit that, the writ petition is devoid of any merits and same may be dismissed. 18. The petitioner in reply to the affidavits in reply has filed affidavit in rejoinder thereby denying the allegations in the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Relying upon the averments in the affidavit in rejoinder, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the respondents by way of filing additional affidavit are trying to substitute reasons which do not find place in the impugned order. It is submitted that, the respondent authorities cannot give additional reasons by way of affidavit and the same, therefore, may not be accepted. It is submitted that, additional affidavit is totally frivolous and same is filed in order to mislead this Court. It is further submitted that, considering Rules of 1960, it is not contemplated that, the licencing authority to verify antecedents/background of the petitioner. It is submitted that, it is at all not necessary and also rules do not permit to find out the financial soundness of the applicant to run social club. It is further submitted that, considering Rules of 1960, it is not contemplated that, the licencing authority to verify antecedents/background of the petitioner. It is submitted that, it is at all not necessary and also rules do not permit to find out the financial soundness of the applicant to run social club. It is submitted that, the respondent authorities are every time coming with new grounds only in order to harass the petitioner and to reject the application for obvious reasons. It is submitted that, the respondent authorities are misinterpreting rules thereby giving new reasons by way of affidavit in reply. It is submitted that, rule 110(B) of the said Rules does not empower the authorities to ask for income tax returns of the society. It is submitted that, licencing authority has only power to see as to whether there is compliance of Rule 110(A) of the said Rules. It is submitted that, the respondent authorities have not given any reason that the petitioner is not fit person for grant of licence and therefore, the contention raised in the affidavit in reply that, the petitioner is not fit person for grant of licence cannot be countenanced. It is submitted that, the respondent authorities are deliberately, with malafide and for obvious reasons are changing their stand by filing affidavit which does not find place in the impugned order. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the contentions raised in the affidavit in reply deserve no consideration and the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 19. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of the Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondents. I have also carefully perused the pleadings in the petition, grounds taken therein, annexures thereto, affidavits in reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on 3rd November, 2012 and also on 18th January, 2013. I have also perused the relevant provisions of the Bombay Police Act, relevant rules which are applicable in the facts of the present case and also other material placed on record and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court cited across the bar by the Counsel for the parties. I have also perused the relevant provisions of the Bombay Police Act, relevant rules which are applicable in the facts of the present case and also other material placed on record and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court cited across the bar by the Counsel for the parties. For ready reference said rules are reproduced herein below; "108-A. Requirement to be fulfilled for grant of Premises Licence-Every person applying for grant of Premises Licence for Public Amusement shall fulfill the following requirements, namely:- (i) Any application for premises Licence shall be accompanied by the site plan indicating inter alia the distance of the site from any religious, educational institution or hospital. (ii) The distance between the proposed place of amusement and the religious place or hospital or educational institution shall be more than 75 meters. (iii) The proposed place of amusement shall not have been located in the congested and thickly area. (iv) The proposed site must be located on a road having width of more than 10 meters. (v) The owner and partners of the proposed place of amusement must not have been arrested or detained for antisocial or any such activities or convicted for any offences. (vi) The distance between two machines, which are to be installed in tie video parlour shall be reflected in the plan. (vii) No similar place of public amusement exists within a radius of 75 meters. (viii) In case of premises situated on mezzanines an applicant shall also submit No Objection Certificate obtained from Officers of the Buildings and Communication Departments and the Health Department of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation. (b) The conditions mentioned in the Licence shall be observed throughout the period for which the licence is granted and if there is a breach of any one of the conditions, the licence is likely to be cancelled after following the usual procedure." "109. Grant of Premises Licence:- The Licensing Authority on receipt of documents and Certificate referred to in Rule 108 may grant a Premises Licence to the applicants on such terms and conditions and subject to such restrictions as the Licensing Authority may determine. The Premises License except for Games shall be in the form "D" and for Games in Form "DD" subject to such additional alterations as may be deemed necessary by the Licensing Authority. The Premises License except for Games shall be in the form "D" and for Games in Form "DD" subject to such additional alterations as may be deemed necessary by the Licensing Authority. The Premises Licence may be issued by the Licensing Authority after confirming suitability of a premises for holding performances for public amusement therein. This Licence shall be for a period of 1 year and can be further continued, subject to renewal thereof by the Licensing Authority. However, holding a Premises Licence in Form "D" does not perse authorize the holder to conduct any Public Amusement performance as defined in Rule 2(j) unless he hold a specific performance licence from the Licensing Authority granted under rule 118 of these Rules." At this juncture, it would be apposite to narrate certain undisputed facts. It is not disputed by the respondents that, the petitioner society is registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 and also under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. It is also not in dispute that, on 7th December, 2009 the petitioner herein, submitted application to respondent No. 3 Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad for grant of premises licence for starting social club/card room. It is also not in dispute that, respondent No. 3 issued letter on 6th January, 2010 asking the petitioner to comply with certain documents i.e. registration certificate under Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, Shop Act Licence, map, proof of land, certificate of health department, certificate of electricity inspector and certificate of Fire Brigade. It is stated by the petitioner that, all the afore mentioned documents were demanded by respondent No. 3 and same are submitted under covering letter of the petitioner dated 4th June, 2010. The said contention of the petitioner has not been disputed by the respondents. It is also not in dispute that, the application filed by the petitioner was not decided till 18th October, 2010. It is not in dispute that, the petitioner has complied the requirements/submission of documents stated by the respondent No. 3 in his letter dated 6th January, 2010 and submitted all the documents on 4th June, 2010. It is also not in dispute that, by letter dated 18th August, 2010 the petitioner made application to respondent No. 3 requesting to grant licence as he has complied with all necessary documents. It is also not in dispute that, by letter dated 18th August, 2010 the petitioner made application to respondent No. 3 requesting to grant licence as he has complied with all necessary documents. It was also stated in the said letter that, from the date on which all the documents are submitted by the petitioner to respondent No. 3, 75 days time has elapsed and no decision was taken by respondent No.3, and first time by letter dated 18th October, 2010, the petitioner was communicated that, his application requesting for grant of licence has been rejected. 20. Upon careful perusal of the contents of the said letter which is at Exhibit-D of the compilation of writ petition at page 72, it appears that, the application is not simplicitor rejected but it is stated in the communication dated 18th October, 2010 that, the petitioner will not get licence only for card room, however, the petitioner will have to establish complete sport society, and in case such sport society is established then only request of the petitioner for grant of licence as requested by him by application dated 7th December, 2009 can be considered. Though it is denied by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in their affidavit in reply that, on expiry of 60 days period, there is a provision for deemed permission, in this regard it is relevant to refer to the pleadings in paragraph-4 of the petition. In paragraph-4 of the petition it is stated by the petitioner that, no decision was taken by respondent No.3 within 60 days in spite of fulfilling all the requirements and submitting all necessary documents on 4th June, 2010. It is further stated that, in case all the necessary documents are submitted and the application is complete in all sense it is incumbent upon respondent No. 3 to take decision within 60 days from the date of application and if such decision is not taken, in that case there is deeming provision that, premises licences is deemed to have been granted in favour of the applicant. The petitioner has placed on record the letter dated 18th August, 2010 written by the petitioner to respondent No. 3 stating therein that, since licence is not issued within 60 days from 4th June, 2010 i.e. date on which all the necessary documents were submitted by the petitioner to respondent No. 3 and therefore, in view of such deeming provision the petitioner has started sports activities subject to relevant rules in force. 21. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to the relevant procedure provided by the respondents themselves, providing time limit within which the concerned officials are supposed to prepare the report considering various factors like law and order, suitability of the person and the traffic. According to said procedure, such report is required to be prepared for grant of premises licence. The procedure/provision providing for time limit for preparation of report and to take decision by the Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad in vernacular reads thus: “HINDI” The said procedure also provides for, after receiving report from the concerned officer, the respondent No. 3 i.e. Commissioner of Police, is supposed to take decision within 15 days. Therefore, it follows from afore stated procedure that, after receiving application for grant of premises licence under the Rules of 1960, the entire exercise is to be completed within 60 days including issuance of licence/permission. In case there is no communication to the applicant within 60 days from the receipt of the application which is complete in all sense, there is deeming provision and in view of the said, the applicant will be justified to run social club/card room. In short, in case there is no communication within 60 days from receipt of the application, in view of deeming provision, the applicant deemed to have received premises licence to run social club/card room. However, the applicant will have to communicate that, in view of deeming provision, he is going to start social club/card room. In short, in case there is no communication within 60 days from receipt of the application, in view of deeming provision, the applicant deemed to have received premises licence to run social club/card room. However, the applicant will have to communicate that, in view of deeming provision, he is going to start social club/card room. In the present case, it is not in dispute that, by letter dated 18th August, 2010 addressed by the President of the petitioner society/trust to the respondent No.3, it was communicated that, in spite of 75 days time has been elapsed from the date of the application accompanied with all necessary documents, there is no communication from the respondent No. 3 in respect of decision taken by him on an application and in view of deeming provision the petitioner is starting social club/card room, (copy of said letter is placed on record by the petitioner at Exhibit-C from pages 69 to 71 of the compilation of the writ petition). The said communication has not been denied by the respondents and in particular by the respondent No. 3, therefore, in view of the deeming provision, the licence is deemed to have been granted to the petitioner to run social club/card room. It is admitted position that, there was no any decision on the application of the petitioner for about 75 days from the date of application. Therefore, the petitioner was justified in starting social club and other activities for which permission was sought for by the petitioner. In this respect, it is also necessary to refer to the order passed by this Court on 22nd October, 2012 which reads thus: "1. Heard. 2. Mr. T.S. Lodhe, learned Astt. Govt. Pleader seeks time to file affidavit in reply. 3. The Respondents shall file affidavit-in-reply on each aspect as contended in the Writ Petition, including the aspect of deemed permission. 4. Stand over to 5.11.2012, as a last chance." Therefore, it is clear from clause-3 of the order dated 22nd October, 2012 passed by this Court that, the respondent No. 3 was directed to file affidavit in rely on each aspect as contended in the Writ Petition, including the aspect of deemed permission. Affidavit in reply/additional affidavit in reply filed by the respondents is silent about the aspect of deemed permission. (emphasis supplied). 22. Affidavit in reply/additional affidavit in reply filed by the respondents is silent about the aspect of deemed permission. (emphasis supplied). 22. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that, registration of the criminal case against the members of the petitioner trust in Kranti Chowk Police station, Aurangabad on 22nd August, 2010 bearing N.C. No. 407 of 2010 under section 33(b)(1)/131 of the Bombay Police Act, was in contravention and in dehors to the procedure / provision stated herein before. The act of the petitioner to start social club/card room cannot be termed as illegal or contrary to procedure rather it is in consonance with the procedure provided for by the respondents. There is no denial that, there is a time limit for considering the application and communicating the decision on such application and therefore, it can safely be concluded that, the action of the police department to register N.C. against the petitioner trust was arbitrary exercise of the powers vested in the concerned authorities. Therefore, relying upon the said non cognizable offence registered against the petitioner, the respondents and in particular respondent No. 3 could not have said in affidavit in reply that, in view of registration of non cognizable offence against the petitioner, the permission cannot be granted. It is crystal clear that, the respondents have created the aforesaid ground by registering the non cognizable offence against the petitioner trust, so as to refuse premises licence on that ground to the petitioner. Therefore, such ground created by the respondent authorities so as to deny premises licence to the petitioner cannot sustain and on that ground, the respondent No. 3 could not have refused the premises licence. 23. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have stated in their affidavit in reply that, all seven members of the petitioner trust were required to submit their income tax returns disclosing their source of income for organizing the funds for running social club/card room. It is also stated that, the petitioner has changed the location of club for which they have to pay Rs.11,00,000/- and therefore, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 thought it fit to ask the petitioner about the source of income for organizing the funds for running social club. It is also stated that, it is the duty of the licencing authority to verify the antecedents and background of the applicant. 3 and 4 thought it fit to ask the petitioner about the source of income for organizing the funds for running social club. It is also stated that, it is the duty of the licencing authority to verify the antecedents and background of the applicant. It is further stated that, the petitioner has not submitted audit report. 24. It would be apposite to reproduce herein below the order passed by this Court on 4th August, 2011 in Writ Petition No.4055 of 2011 which reads thus: "Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner had applied for the permission to open and run a social club and card room. The said application is rejected by the Police Commissioner vide order dated 18.10.2010 on the ground that permission cannot be granted only to run the card room and if the application is given to erect a sports complex, then the application can be considered. The petitioner challenged the said order before the State Government. The Hon'ble Minister rejected the appeal reiterating the same ground. The petitioner has assailed the said judgment before this Court. 3. Shri Dhorde, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the relevant Rules, there are no restrictions for grant of permission to run a social club having a card room in the nature that the same should only be in a sports complex. As such, it was erroneous on the part of the authorities not to consider the same. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader could not point out any provision wherein the permission to open and run a social club along with card room cannot be granted, unless and until the other sports activities are also undertaken. 5. When the statute does not lay down any conditions for starting a social club with a card room de-hors the other sports activities, then the authorities could not have rejected the application on the said ground. 6. The authorities while considering the application for permission can lay down restrictions as are permissible in the Statute and the Rules, but not the one which are not recognized by the Statute and the Rules. 7. In view of the above, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. 6. The authorities while considering the application for permission can lay down restrictions as are permissible in the Statute and the Rules, but not the one which are not recognized by the Statute and the Rules. 7. In view of the above, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The authority i. e. the office of the Police Commissioner, Aurangabad shall consider the application of the petitioner to open and run the social club with a card room as stated in the application afresh according to the provisions of the Statute and rules governing the said application. The said application shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two (2) month from today. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with above observations. No costs. The Rule is made absolute in above terms." (Emphasis supplied). 25. Upon careful perusal of paragraph-5 of the order of this Court reproduced herein above, it is abundantly clear that, this Court in clear words and in unequivocal terms indicated the respondent authorities that, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 could not have rejected the application on those grounds/conditions when the statute does not lay down such conditions for starting social club with card room. It was also directed the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that, while considering the application of the petitioner afresh, authority can lay down restrictions as are permissible in the Statute and the Rules, but not the one which are not recognized by the Statute and Rules. In the aforesaid writ petition, this Court directed the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 i.e. the Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad to consider the application of the petitioner to open and run social club with card room afresh. However, it appears that, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in utter disregard to the opinion/observations in paragraph-5 of the said order have once again rejected the application of the petitioner on second time on such conditions, when the Statute does not lay down such conditions for granting licence/permission like asking for the income tax returns, audit report, source of income and antecedents etc., for starting social club with card room. Such act of the respondent Nos. Such act of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to refuse the permission to the petitioner on conditions which are not laid down by the Statute/rules would amount to arbitrary exercise of the powers by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It is not the case that, the respondent No. 3 is not aware about the fact that, there are no conditions/requirements in any of the relevant statute or rules for submitting income tax returns of individual members of the petitioner, audit report of the petitioner trust/society and source of income etc. It is necessary to make reference to averments in paragraph3 of the additional affidavit in reply filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 which reads thus: "3. I say and submit that, there is no statutory provision either in Bombay Police Act or under Rules for Licensing and Controlling Places of Public Amusements (Other than Cinemas) and Performances for Public Amusement, including Melas and Tamasha's 1960, wherein the authority would compel to the applicant to comply the above said conditions. I most respectfully say and submit that Asstt. Commissioner of Police (Crime) Aurangabad City was appointed for enquiry regarding the application of the petitioner for Social Club/Card Room vide O.No. 14882/2011 Dtd. 24.10.2011. The Asstt. Commissioner of Police (Crime) Aurangabad City has submitted report on 14.11.2011, again he was asked to verify the documents and to submit report, as such Asstt. Commissioner of Police (Crime) Aurangabad City visited spot, but it was noticed to him that location of Club has been changed by applicant and after detail verification of Location and documents concerned, Asstt. Commissioner of Police (Crime) Aurangabad City has submitted final report on 31.12.2011 vide O.No. 2041/2011. 4. I say and submit that, as per statement of Smt. Sonam Raju Tanwani, it was appeared that Anandsagar Bahuuddeshiya Social Krida Mandal (Sanstha) Aurangabad has taken shop on rent for dtd. 1.7.2010 to 31.5.2011 for the period of 11 months agreement on amount of Rs.1,00,000/-p.m. As such as per the statement of Land lady Sonam Raju Tanwani, it was significant for present respondent to know the sources of Income of Anand Sagar Bahudeshiya Social Krida Mandal (Sanstha) Aurangabad, for that reason and for the reason of change in location of the club, source of Income was asked by the present respondent." (Emphasis supplied). 26. 26. Therefore, upon careful reading of the contents of paragraph-3 of the additional affidavit in reply filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on 19th January, 2013 it is abundantly clear that, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have no authority to ask for fulfillment of those conditions/requirements which are not provided either in the Bombay Police Act or under the Rules of 1960. At this juncture, it would be worthwhile to make reference to the unreported judgment of this Court in the case of Chandrakant@ Chandrashekhar Veerbhandrapa Rachatte vs. State of Maharashtra and others in Criminal Writ Petition NO. 490 of 2008 decided on 18th September, 2008. In that case, the petitioner therein challenged the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Latur thereby rejecting the application filed by the petitioner therein for grant of licence under the Arms Act, 1959 and the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad thereby dismissing the appeal of the petitioner therein. In that case, the licence was not granted on the ground that, there are certain criminal cases pending against the petitioner therein. This Court in paragraph-6 considered subsection (1) of section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959 and on an interpretation of the provisions of the said section, the Court observed that, when the specific grounds are mentioned in the said section on which the application for licence would be refused, the authorities were wrong and not justified in refusing the licence on the grounds which are not the grounds stated in the statute or relevant rules. This Court in paragraph-6 and 7 of the said judgment observed thus: "6. This Court in paragraph-6 and 7 of the said judgment observed thus: "6. Sub-section 1 of Section 14 of the Arms Act, 1959, reads thus: "Refusal of licences – (1) Notwithstanding anything in section 13, the licensing authority shall refuse to grant - (a) a licence under section 3, section 4 or section 5 where such licence is required in respect of any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunition; (b) a licence in any other case under Chapter II, - (i) where such licence is required by a person whom the licensing authority has reason to believe – (1) to be prohibited by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force from requiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms of ammunition, or (2) to be of unsound mind, or (3) to be for any reason unfit for a licence under this Act; or (ii) where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for the public safety to refuse to grant such licence. It would thus be clear that specific grounds have been mentioned in the said section, on which the application for licence would be refused. It could thus be seen that the discretion has to be exercised by the authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It can be seen that merely because a person is facing criminal charges, cannot be a ground for refusal of licence. Licence can be refused if the authority has reason to believe that the person applying is prohibited by the said Act or by any other law for the time being in force from acquiring, having in his possession or carrying any arms or ammunition or if he is found to be of unsound mind, or for any reason unfit for a licence under the said Act, or where the licensing authority deems it necessary for the security of the public peace or for public safety to refuse to grant such licence. 7. When a statute prescribes the grounds on which discretion is to be exercised, then such a discretion is to be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the statute and not on any other ground not mentioned in the said statute. 7. When a statute prescribes the grounds on which discretion is to be exercised, then such a discretion is to be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the statute and not on any other ground not mentioned in the said statute. Perusal of the impugned orders would reveal that the authority has not refused to grant licence on the grounds mentioned in Sub-section 1 of Section 14 of the Arms Act. The order of the Additional District Magistrate would further show that the contention of the present petitioner regarding settlement of the dispute and the criminal cases arising out of family dispute has also not been considered. In that view of the matter, I find that the discretion has not been exercised by the authorities in a proper manner." Therefore, upon careful reading of paragraph-6 and 7 from the judgment of this Court in the case of Chandrakant (supra), it is abundantly clear that, in the first place, when a statute prescribes the grounds on which discretion is to be exercised, such discretion is to be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the statute and not on any other ground not mentioned in the said statute. (Emphasis supplied). 27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.J. Sivani and others vs. State of Karnataka and others [(1995) 6 Supreme Court Cases 289] while dealing with the provisions of Mysore Police Act, 1963 held that, Gaming is an inclusive definition which includes a game of chance and skill combined or a pretended game of chance or of chance and skill combined. The elements of gaming are the presence of prizes or consideration, chance and prizes are reward and games includes a contrivance which has for its object to furnish sport, recreation or amusement. Amusement would mean diversion, pastime or enjoyment or a pleasurable occupation of the senses, or that which furnished it. A common gaming house is a place or public place kept or used for playing therein any game of chance, or any mixed game of chance and skill, in which the organizer keeps one or more of the players. It is also a place in which any game is played, the chances of which are not favourable alike to all the players. It is also a place in which any game is played, the chances of which are not favourable alike to all the players. Gaming is to play any game whether of skill or chance for money or money's worth and the act is not less gaming because the game played is not in itself unlawful and whether it involved or did not involve skill. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment in paragraph-31 further held that, every action of the State or an instrumentality of the State must be informed by reason. Actions uninformed by reason may amount to being arbitrary and liable to be questioned under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution. The action must be just, fair and reasonable. Rejection of the licence must be founded upon relevant grounds of public interest. Fair play and natural justice are part of fair public administration; non-arbitrariness and absence of discrimination are hallmarks for good governance under rule of law. Therefore, when the State, its delegated authority or an instrumentality of the State or any person who acts under a statutory rule or by administrative discretion, when its actions or orders visit the citizen with civil consequences, fairness and justness require that in an appropriate case, the affected citizens must have an opportunity to meet the case. Audi alteram partem is part of the principles of natural justice. But decided cases have not extended doctrine of hearing in every case. It depends upon facts in a given case. This requirement of natural justice cannot be put in a right mould. 28. Therefore, it follows from the conjoint reading of paragraph-10 and 31 from the judgment of M.J. Sivani (supra) that, gaming is to play any game whether of skill or chance for money or money's worth and the act is not less gaming because the game played is not in itself unlawful and whether it involved or did not involve skill. It further follows from paragraph-31 that, every action of the State or an instrumentality of the State must be informed by reason. Actions uninformed by reason may amount to being arbitrary and liable to be questioned under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution. The action must be just, fair and reasonable. Rejection of the licence must be founded upon relevant grounds of public interest. Actions uninformed by reason may amount to being arbitrary and liable to be questioned under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution. The action must be just, fair and reasonable. Rejection of the licence must be founded upon relevant grounds of public interest. Fair play and natural justice are part of fair public administration; non-arbitrariness and absence of discrimination are hallmarks for good governance under rule of law. 29. Therefore, the respondent No. 3 could not have rejected the application for premises licence to run social club/card room on the ground that, the members of the petitioner society/trust have not submitted income tax returns, audit report, not disclosing the source of income for organizing funds etc. In the facts of this case, taking into consideration the material placed on record including replies filed by the respondents, there is no manner of doubt that, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were bent upon to search irrelevant reasons/conditions/requirements so as to reject the application of the petitioner for premises licence though such conditions/requirements have no any place either in the statute or rules. Therefore, to conclude, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 could not have rejected the application filed by the petitioner on the aforesaid conditions, when the statute/rules does not provide for such conditions. Therefore, the act of the respondent No. 3 to reject the application of the petitioner by ignoring observations of this Court in paragraph-5 of the order dated 4th August, 2011 in Writ Petition No. 4055 of 2011 amounts to assuming authority in himself above the observations in judicial proceedings and also above the legislative / executive intent not to provide for such conditions as imposed by the respondent No. 3, in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 being a responsible officer holding the post of Commissioner of Police, as a duty bound should have adhered to the observations of this Court in paragraph-5 of the order dated 4th August, 2011 in Writ Petition No. 4055 of 2011. The legislative/executive with some reasons and objects have provided for having social clubs/card rooms etc., keeping in view the public interest and social interest and to have recreational facilities to the common citizen. The legislative/executive with some reasons and objects have provided for having social clubs/card rooms etc., keeping in view the public interest and social interest and to have recreational facilities to the common citizen. Therefore, the legislative intent to have such facilities like social clubs/card rooms for members of the public at large and to that effect making provisions for granting permission/licence has been frustrated by arbitrary exercise of powers by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. By exercising powers arbitrarily by asking to fulfill the conditions/requirements which were not contemplated and do not find place in the relevant statute/rules, the respondent No. 3 in particular has made the legislative intent nugatory. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 whose functions are covered under the administrative wing of the State, are bound by the legislative intent and judicial verdicts and therefore, it was their bounden duty to exercise discretion within four corners of the provisions in the relevant statute and rules and observations of this Court in paragraph-5 of the order dated 4th August, 2011 in Writ Petition No. 4055 of 2011 in earlier round of litigation. Therefore, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.J. Sivani (supra), every action of the State or an instrumentality of the State must be just, fair and reasonable. Fair play and natural justice are part of fair public administration; non-arbitrariness and absence of discrimination are hallmarks for good governance under rule of law. Therefore, the respondent No. 3 should have exercised the powers in just, fair and reasonable manner. 30. In the facts of the present case, there is no manner of doubt that, the discretion/powers available to the respondent No. 3 in view of the relevant statute/rule are arbitrarily exercised by the respondent No. 3, so as to refuse premises licence for running social club/card room to the petitioner by hook or cook. Such act of the respondent No. 3 to harass the petitioner cannot be countenanced. 31. The other grounds which are supplemented by filing affidavit in reply/additional affidavit in reply by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, which do not find place in the order of rejection of the application are required to be rejected straight way in view of authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another (supra). 32. 3 and 4, which do not find place in the order of rejection of the application are required to be rejected straight way in view of authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another (supra). 32. It is also necessary to remind the respondent No. 3 and other respondent State authorities that, nobody is above the law and every instrumentality/authority of the State is bound by the relevant statutory provisions/rules and judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Courts and they cannot assume and presume authority in themselves by imposing conditions over and above which do not find place in the relevant statute/rules. 33. The another contention of the respondent authorities that, the petitioner is not a fit person or suitable for grant of licence is afterthought upon misinterpretation of Rule 110 (b) of the Rules of 1960. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as observed earlier, by searching new grounds predetermined in mind to reject the application of the petitioner, have searched for new ground that, the petitioner is not fit person. Such ground is not reflected when the respondent No. 3 did ask the petitioner to submit certain documents/fulfill the conditions or such ground is not stated in the order rejecting the application of the petitioner either in the first round or second round. Therefore, such grounds/conditions by the respondent No. 3 amounts to arbitrary exercise of the powers. 34. It is also relevant to observe that, the appellate authority who is suppose to exercise powers in accordance with the relevant statute/rules have mechanically endorsed the decision of the respondent Nos., 3 and 4 without proper application of mind. Therefore, the impugned order dated 3/06-09-2012 passed by the respondent No.1 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and the order dated 29-02-2012 passed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 thereby refusing to grant licence to start and run the Social Club/Card Room in favour of the petitioner, is quashed and set aside. 35. The Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). The matter is remitted back to the respondent No. 3 for deciding the application of the present petitioner afresh in accordance with the observations made in this judgment and order within six weeks from today. Rule made absolute on above terms. The writ petition is disposed of. 35. The Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (B). The matter is remitted back to the respondent No. 3 for deciding the application of the present petitioner afresh in accordance with the observations made in this judgment and order within six weeks from today. Rule made absolute on above terms. The writ petition is disposed of. List the matter so as to ascertain compliance, on 11th June, 2013.