AN appeal against a decision not to allow an Indian restaurant to sell alcohol has be rejected by magistrates, despite the owner’s claims he had not been fairly treated.

Members of the town hall’s licensing committee refused to grant a licence to Shimla, in Bromley Cross, when they considered an application last year.

But owner Ponke Miah lodged an appeal on the grounds councillors had taken ‘irrelevant’ objections into account and the licensing officer's report was flawed.

Bromley Cross Ward Cllr Norman Critchley and Barry Wilcock, who lives opposite Shimla gave evidence against the application as witnesses.

Barrister, Haruk Miah, told Bolton Magistrates Court that representations made against the application were not valid but driven by a desire to see the restaurant, in Darwen Road, close for good.

He said: “This is personal, this goes beyond whether a licence should be granted or denied, but whether the business should exist at the premises. All are irrelevant considerations and they are unfair.

But despite a lengthy summing up by Mr Miah, magistrates backed the findings of the licensing committee.

Delivering their decision Magistrates chairman Eleanor Murdoch said: “We agree with Mr Miah that the area is comprised of residential and commercial properties.

“And, in regard to representations made by five individuals, although not all are valid to the grant of a premises licence, there were sufficient valid points to trigger the licensing objectives.”

She continued: “We do not feel the council’s decision was flawed or personal, and there was no evidence to substantiate this.

“The decision of the licensing committee was based on their knowledge, training, and expertise and we therefore uphold the decision and refuse the appeal.”

Magistrates heard how Mr Miah had given a job to someone who was not entitled to work in the UK, after failing to make the proper checks.

He is currently paying back a civil penalty charge for the offence. But Mr Kitchen said he had been ‘less than frank’ when questioned about the matter.

He added: “It demonstrated the way he was running the business, at least at the time of the incident.”

And on Mr Miah’s responses when he quizzed him over licence holders obligations, he said: “He was entirely unable to say what the licensing objectives were, with the exception of child protection.

“If, as an applicant, he is unaware of the objectives of licensing policy what faith can you have in him acting in a way that would uphold them?”