Beauty parlours don’t need a licence: HC

A beauty parlour owner K P Bhatt, represented by advocate L V Torke, moved the magistrate’s court praying for discharge in an offence registered under the BMC Act. The offence was registered since the parlour owner had not sought a licence. The accused argued that a beauty parlour does not fall in Schedule `M’ of the BMC Act, and therefore, does not need a licence.

But the BMC counsel argued for the necessity of a licence. It was stated that a parlour is a shop providing specific services and goods, and that the BMC had framed a bye-law to include beauty parlours in the schedule M. A circular to that effect had been sent by the BMC.

However, counsel for the accused argued that a bye-law passed by theBMC cannot decide the fate of beauty parlours in the city. The bye-law must be confirmed either by the Central government or the state government and must be published in the official gazette, only then can it become a rule. After hearing both sides, the metropolitan magistrate N E Tayade held the accused was not guilty of an offence under the BMC Act.