In which of the following cases, the Supreme Court quashed the ban on dancing bars in the State of Maharashtra as violation of Article 19(1)(g)?

It was held in the case of Indian Hotel And Restaurant vs The State Of Maharashtra Home ... on 17 January, 2019- “ Before parting, we would like to re-emphasise that the State cannot take exception to staging dance performances per se. It appears from the history of legislative amendments made from time to time that the respondents have somehow developed the notion that such performances in the dance bars do not have moralistic basis. Initially the law was passed in the year 2005 by inserting Sections 33A and 33B in the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951. At that time, by the said amendment, State desired total prohibition on the performance of dance in eating house, permit room or bear bar on the premise that such performances are always indecent, obscene or vulgar. It was also on the notion that such performances were giving rise to exploitation of women as well. However, while upholding the decision of the High Court declaring Section 33A of Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 to be unconstitutional, this Court found and specifically held that there was no material or empirical data in the aforesaid perception garnered by the State. This Court also held that the impugned provision did not pass the muster of constitutional provisions as it was found to be violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court also categorically observed that there were enough statutory provisions in number of Acts and Rules (which are stipulated in Paras 127 to 131 of the said judgment).”