Bombay High Court
JITENDRA NANDLAL VAITYversusTHE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court directed the appellate authority to hear the pending appeals expeditiously and stayed the suspension order for six weeks.
Summary
The petitioners challenged a suspension order of their orchestra licence issued under Rules 238 and 239 of the Public Amusement Rules, 1999, which barred them from operating for 30 days starting 15 August 2026. They had filed statutory appeals against the suspension, but the appellate authority had not yet heard them. The respondents argued that the appellate remedy was already invoked and the court should not intervene. The High Court held that, given the short suspension period, the pending appeal risked becoming ineffective if not heard promptly, and therefore the court could grant interim relief. It directed the appellate authority to hear the appeals expeditiously or, failing that, to consider stay applications within four weeks, and stayed the suspension order for six weeks. The writ petitions were disposed with these directions.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition can be entertained when a statutory appeal against the impugned order is pending
- Whether the court should grant a stay of the licence suspension pending the hearing of the appeal
Subjects
- stay of execution
- statutory appeal
- public amusement licence
- interim relief
- writ petition
- administrative law
Judgment
901-WP10632-2026+.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10632 OF 2026
Jitendra Nandlal Vaity ...Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner Of Police And Ors …Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10633 OF 2026
Ganesh Mahabal Vaity ...Petitioner
SANTOSH
SUBHASH Versus
KULKARNI
The Commissioner Of Police And Ors …Respondents
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH
SUBHASH
KULKARNI WITH
Date: 2026.08.19
17:57:45 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO. 10634 OF 2026
Ravish Gangadhar Shetty ...Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner Of Police And Ors …Respondents
Mr. Vijay Patil, Senior Advocate, a/w Vivek Rane, i/b Kuldeep
Jain, for the Petitioner in all WP.
Mr. Yatin Kochare, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for the State – Respondent
Nos.1 to 3.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATED: 18th AUGUST, 2026
Oral Order:-
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge in these Petitions is to an order dated 12 th
August, 2026 passed by the Respondent No.2, whereby in
exercise of the powers under Rules 238 and 239 of the Rules for
1/4
901-WP10632-2026+.DOC
Licencing and Controlling places of Public Amusement (other
than Cinemas) and Performances (including Melas and
Tamashas), 1999 (“the Public Amusement Rules, 1999”), the
Respondent No.2 has suspended the licence of the Petitioner to
operate the orchestra for a period of 30 days from 15 th August,
2026.
3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the
Petitioners have already filed statutory appeals against the said
order alongwith an applications for stay to the impugned orders.
However, the said appeals are not taken up for hearing by
Respondent No.3.
4. The learned AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3-State submits
that the Respondent No.3 will decide the appeals expeditiously
and as the statutory remedy of appeal has already been invoked,
this Court may not entertain the Petitions at this stage.
5. Since the impugned order is passed on 12th August, 2026
and the performance licence to operate the orchestra has been
suspended for a period of 30 days from 15 th August, 2026, if the
appeal is not expeditiously heard, the statutory remedy of
appeal would be rendered nugatory. In a case of the present
nature, when the statute provides for an appellate remedy and
the period of suspension is short one, there is a clear and
2/4
901-WP10632-2026+.DOC
present risk of the appellate remedy being rendered infructuous
by the sheer passage of time if the appeal is not expeditiously
heard.
6. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court is inclined
to direct the Appellate Authority to hear and decide the appeals
expeditiously and, if it is not possible to hear the appeals finally,
hear the applications for stay to the orders passed by the
Competent Authority within a period of four weeks, and, in the
meanwhile, grant limited interim relief.
7. The Writ Petitions, thus, stand disposed with the following
directions :
(i) The Appellate Authority – Respondent No.3 is directed to
hear and decide the appeals preferred by the Petitioners,
as expeditiously as possible, and if it is not possible to
hear the appeals finally, hear the applications for stay to
the execution and operation of the impugned orders
passed by the Competent Authority within a period of
four weeks from 24th August, 2026.
(ii) The Petitioners shall appear before the Appellate
Authority on 24th August, 2026.
3/4
901-WP10632-2026+.DOC
(iii) In the meanwhile, the execution and operation of the
impugned orders shall remain stayed for a period of six
weeks.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
4/4
Checking your session…