JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner was running a hotel, permit room and beer bar, in the name and style of 'Hotel Chandrama Resort'. Permission for keeping an eating house was granted to the petitioner and a Certificate of Registration of the said hotel as an 'eating house', as contemplated under the provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act, and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder, had been issued. By an order dated 1-6-2013 (Exhibit "N" to the petition), the Tahsildar and Taluka Executive Magistrate, Bhokar (District : Nanded), cancelled the eating house license issued in respect of the said Hotel Chandrama Resort. The petitioner appealed to the State of Maharashtra, challenging the said decision taken by the Tahsildar and Taluka Executive Magistrate, but the said appeal, which was heard by the Principal Secretary, Home Department, came to be dismissed. The petitioner has, by the present petition, approached this Court, challenging the said orders passed by the said authorities and is invoking the constitutional jurisdiction and inherent powers of this Court, praying that the said orders be quashed and set aside. 2. As affidavit in reply on behalf of the respondents has already been filed, Rule is issued and made returnable forthwith, by consent. By consent, heard finally, forthwith. 3. I have heard Mr. N.B. Suryawanshi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. I have heard Mr. P.N. Muley, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I have gone through the petition and the annexures thereto. I have also gone through the contents in the affidavit in reply. 4. The only reason for cancelling the eating house license issued in respect of the petitioner's hotel is given as in a room of the said hotel, a serious offence of rape had taken place. It appears that the husband of the petitioner is one of the accused in the said case of rape registered vide C.R. No. 20/2013 of Bhokar Police Station. 5. I have gone through the facts of the said case as reflected from the copy of the charge sheet in that case, which has been annexed to the petition. It appears that the husband of the petitioner is one of the accused in the said case of rape registered vide C.R. No. 20/2013 of Bhokar Police Station. 5. I have gone through the facts of the said case as reflected from the copy of the charge sheet in that case, which has been annexed to the petition. It appears that the prosecutrix, a minor, and a member of a Scheduled Caste, was induced by one of the accused, Raju Rayate, to come to a particular place and when the prosecutrix went there, another accused, Sonu @ Sunil, took her by an autorickshaw to Hotel Chandrama Resort. Room No.3 in the said Hotel Chandrama Resort was booked and that, in that room, the said Sonu @ Sunil committed rape on the prosecutrix. That, Sonu @ Sunil thereafter called his friend - Sandeep (another accused) - there, and after Sandeep came, the prosecutrix, Sunil and Sandeep took food together. Thereafter, accused Sunil and Sandeep and the prosecutrix left Hotel Chandrama Resort. The prosecutrix was taken to a hut, where two more accused - Raju and Govind - were present and they also raped the prosecutrix repeatedly. The prosecutrix was then made to sit in a auto-rickshaw and driver of the auto-rickshaw, one Majid, also committed rape on the prosecutrix. When the prosecutrix took help of one hotel owner, her relatives were called. A case in respect of various offences, including rape and the offences punishable under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was registered. 6. Though the petitioner's husband was not named as an accused in the first information report, and though, admittedly, he had not raped the prosecutrix, on the ground that, ‘he had made a room in Hotel Chandrama Resort available for committing rape’, he has been named as an accused in the charge sheet on the allegation that he abetted the commission of rape on the prosecutrix by the other accused. 7. Mr. Suryawanshi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the evidence of the prosecutrix has been recorded in the course of the trial and that the prosecutrix has not supported the prosecution case. He submitted that the prosecutrix has been declared ‘hostile’. Thus, he contended that, therefore, there was no basis for claiming that any rape had taken place in any room of Hotel Chandrama Resort. 8. He submitted that the prosecutrix has been declared ‘hostile’. Thus, he contended that, therefore, there was no basis for claiming that any rape had taken place in any room of Hotel Chandrama Resort. 8. Though it appears from the copies of the notes of evidence of the prosecutrix, as recorded during the trial, that what Mr. Suryawanshi submits is correct, in my opinion, that is not the crucial aspect of the matter. The crucial aspect is whether, even assuming that the prosecutrix was raped in one of the rooms in Hotel Chandrama Resort, the action of cancellation or revocation of the eating license, on that basis, is justified. 9. Obviously, there must be rules, subject to which, the certificates of registration are issued to eating houses. There are bound to be rules providing the conditions under which the registration certificate would be liable to be revoked or cancelled. However, interestingly, no such rules have been referred to in the order passed by the Taluka Executive Magistrate and / or the order passed by the appellate authority, while dismissing the appeal. No such rules or contraventions have been referred to even in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondents. No such rules have been referred to or pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Thus, that the registration certificate would be liable to be cancelled, in the event of an offence taking place in the premises of the eating house, was a condition - express or implied - on which the registration certificate had been issued, is not at all clear. Even if the failure of the concerned authorities to be specific and precise in that regard is ignored, the least that was expected was a prima facie satisfaction on the part of these authorities ‘that the petitioner - by herself or through her husband - had given a room in the Hotel Chandrama Resort to the offenders for the purpose of committing rape on the prosecutrix’. For that purpose, it was necessary for the concerned authorities to have come to a conclusion that the room was provided to the offenders, knowing fully that it was being taken for the purpose of committing rape on the prosecutrix. There is, however, not even an allegation to that effect. For that purpose, it was necessary for the concerned authorities to have come to a conclusion that the room was provided to the offenders, knowing fully that it was being taken for the purpose of committing rape on the prosecutrix. There is, however, not even an allegation to that effect. There is nothing to show that the room was given to any of the accused, not in the normal course of the business of the said hotel, but with such an understanding so as to make the husband of the petitioner liable for having abetted commission of rape on the prosecutrix. No such conclusion has been arrived at by any of the said authorities; and in any case, there was no material before them to form any such opinion. Thus, it is evident that merely because a room in Hotel Chandrama Resort was one of the several places where the prosecutrix was allegedly raped by various accused persons, the eating house license of the said Hotel Chandrama Resort came to be cancelled, by refusing its renewal. 10. It is not in dispute that, the Inspector of Police, Bhokar, in his report which was submitted to the Taluka Executive Magistrate, Bhokar, had made it clear that there were no complaints of any nature showing that there was a violation of the terms and conditions on which the eating house license had been granted in respect of Hotel Chandrama Resort. The Inspector of Police, Bhokar Police Station, had categorically signified his 'no objection' to renew the eating house license. A perusal of the order passed by the Taluka Executive Magistrate and the appellate authority indicates that simply because an offence of rape was alleged to have taken place in the premises of the eating house, it was thought fit to cancel the eating house license. Whether the petitioner or her husband could be held responsible for the rape, and whether the said offence could be attributed to any criminal - or at least negligent - act or omission on the part of the petitioner and / or her husband, or whether there had been any contravention of the terms and conditions of the license by the petitioner and / or her husband, was not at all considered by the Taluka Executive Magistrate and / or by the appellate authority. This is apart from the fact that, whether any offence had indeed taken place in the premises of Hotel Chandrama Resort was itself not tried to be ascertained by any of them. In this regard, Mr. Suryawanshi has placed reliance on a decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court, in the case of Kana Nagu Mhatre Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Police and another [ 1996(3) Bom.C.R. 714 ], contending that, mere registration of an offence alleging it to have taken place in the premises of the eating house would not justify cancellation of the eating house license on that count alone. Indeed, the observations made in the said reported judgment support the contention advanced by Mr. Suryawanshi. 11. The action of the cancellation of the eating house license, as taken by the respondents, is vulnerable on a number of grounds. It suffers from a total non-application of mind. It is also absolutely unreasonable. Since no specific violation or breach of any of terms and conditions of the license, or of the relevant rules or regulations framed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Police Act is pointed out, while taking a decision to cancel / not to renew the eating house license, it also suffers from vagueness and renders the procedure adopted by the respondents unfair, unreasonable and unjust. The impugned orders are violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. They are, therefore, required to be interfered with, by exercising the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. 12. The petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses "b" and "c". Rule is made absolute accordingly.