KARNATAKA LIVE BAND RESTAURANTS ASSOCIATION versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 1 S.C.R. 533 · Decided: 25-01-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 14 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
533
KARNATAKA LIVE BAND RESTAURANTS ASSOCIATION
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4741 of 2007)
JANUARY 25, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
The Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public
Entertainment (Bangalore City) Order, 2005 – Constitutionality of
– Order of 2005 framed u/s.31 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963,
regulated the running and  functioning of restaurants displaying
activities viz. “Live Band Music”, “Cabaret Dance” and
“Discotheque” in restaurants – Writ Petitions by appellant-
Association before High Court questioning the constitutional validity
of the 2005 Order, dismissed by High Court – Held: The 2005 Order
does not suffer from any legal infirmity and is therefore constitutional
– Appellant’s business activity, viz., running of restaurants, display
of Live Band Music and two other performances fall under the
expression “Public Entertainment” – 2005 Order was issued only
with a view to control, regulate and supervise the three performances
in the restaurants –  Since these performances are displayed in a
restaurant where public has an access, therefore, in the larger public
interest, these performances have to be controlled, regulated and
supervised by imposing reasonable restrictions in law u/Cl.(6) of
Art.19 of the Constitution – Making it obligatory to obtain licence
to display Cabaret, Discotheque or Live Band is a reasonable
restriction on appellant’s fundamental right to carry on the business
of running the restaurants – Controlling of any business by asking
its owner to obtain licence to do such business is a reasonable
restriction on citizen’s fundamental right u/Art.19(1)(g) r/w 19(6) –
Therefore, restaurants engaged in displaying the three performances
specified in Cl.2 (b), (d) and (j) of the 2005 Order are under legal
obligation to take licence u/Cl.3 – Karnataka Police Act, 1963 –
ss.2 (14), 2 (15) and 31 – Licensing and Controlling of Places of
Public Amusements (Bangalore City) Order, 1989 – Constitution of
India – Art.19(1)(g) and 19(6).
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 533
533
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
534
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
Karnataka Police Act, 1963 – The Licensing and Controlling
of Places of Public Entertainment (Bangalore City) Order, 2005 –
Purpose of enactment – Held: The 1963 Act and the 2005 Order
are enacted keeping in view the safety and the morality of people at
large.
Maxims – “Salus Populi Supremo Lex” and “Salus republicae
supremo lex”– Concept of individual welfare vis-a-vis community
welfare – Discussed.
Constitution of India – Art. 19(1)(g) – Test of reasonableness
in matters of public interest – Held: Test of reasonableness is required
to be viewed in the context of the issues, which faced the legislature
– In construction of such laws and while judging their validity, the
Court has to approach the issue from the point of furthering the
social interest, moral and material progress of the community as a
whole – In such case therefore, it is required to be decided that
whether the restrictions imposed are reasonable in the interest of
general public or not.
Constitution of India – Art. 19(6) – Expression “in the interest
of general public” – Held: Said expression is of wide import which
comprehends in it public order, public health, public security, morals,
economic welfare of the community and objects mentioned in Part
IV of the Constitution.
Constitution of India – Art. 19(6) – Power under, of State to
regulate running of any business – Rights of an individual qua
general public and the State – Held: State has a right to regulate
running of any business by putting reasonable restrictions u/Cl.(6)
in the interest of general public – Public interest, the welfare and
safety of general public always override the right of an individual
– There is no prohibition for any individual to carry on any business,
however, he has to follow the norms and the statutory regulation
framed for carrying on the business.
The Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public
Entertainment (Bangalore City) Order, 2005 – Cl. 7, 8 and 9 – If
arbitrary or unreasonable – Held: Conditions specified in Cl.7, 8
& 9 deal with public safety, comforts, convenience, morality and
law and order – There is no unreasonableness or arbitrariness in
any of the clauses so as to hold that they are unworkable for running
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
535
the restaurant and to display the three performances in question
viz. “Live Band Music”, “Cabaret Dance” and “Discotheque”  –
Those who

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.