Plea to cancel Hyatt's lodging licence: HC seeks Centre reply

Delhi High Court has sought responses from the Centre, Delhi Police, city-based Hyatt Regency hotel and it's US-based parent company on a plea for cancellation of its lodging licence on the ground that it was allegedly renewed illegally.
Justice Manmohan issued notice to the hotel, its parent company Hyatt Hotels Corporation, the licensing department of Delhi Police and the Ministry of Home Affairs and sought their replies on a plea by the sister of a man who had fallen from the sixth floor to the fourth of Hyatt Regency here and suffered serious injuries which put him in a vegetative state.

The petitioner, Gauri Rishi, in her plea has alleged that the licensing department illegally renewed the lodging licence of the hotel for the financial years 2014-15 and 2015-16.
She has said in her plea that the Supreme Court had directed the licensing department to pass a speaking order while deciding her representation against renewal of the hotel's licence and alleged that the authority did not do so.
"... By way of a cryptic, perverse and illegal order dated August 21, 2015, the respondent 2 (Jt Commissioner of Police, Licensing Department) disposed off the representation off the petitioner by stating the same to be devoid of merits by overlooking its own enquiry and admission regarding violation of conditions of lodging license as committed by the subject Hotel," the petition said.

The petition also contended that since the application for renewal was moved 53 days beyond the period prescribed under the licensing regulations, it ought to have been rejected.

"It is pertinent to mention that the regulations do not permit any discretion in condoning the delay in filing an application for renewal beyond the prescribed period stipulated...
The petition has also alleged that the renewal of lodging
licence for 2015-16 was also done on an application filed beyond prescribed period and that too when the issue was pending before the apex court.
The petitioner has alleged that "the fall and thereafter persisting critical condition of the victim (her brother) was solely attributable to the palpable criminality, willful gross negligence and offences committed by management and employees of the Hotel" as despite knowing about risk posed by terrace area (sixth floor) they allowed access to it.