Bombay High Court
GANESH MAHABAL VAITYversusTHE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court directed the appellate authority to hear the pending appeals or consider stay applications within four weeks, staying the suspension order in the interim.
Summary
The petitioners challenged a suspension order dated 12 August 2026, issued by the Commissioner of Police under Rules 238 and 239 of the Public Amusement Rules, 1999, which barred them from operating an orchestra 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 process should be allowed to proceed without judicial interference. The Court held that, given the short suspension period, the delay in hearing the appeals would render the statutory remedy ineffective, and therefore ordered the appellate authority to hear the appeals or at least consider stay applications within four weeks. Interim relief was granted, staying the execution of the suspension for six weeks, and the petitioners were directed to appear before the appellate authority on 24 August 2026. The writ petitions were consequently disposed with these directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can intervene and grant a stay of the suspension order when statutory appeals are pending but not yet heard
- Whether the delay in hearing the statutory appeal would render the remedy nugatory
Subjects
- licence suspension
- public amusement
- statutory appeal
- stay order
- interim relief
- 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
WRIT PETITION NO. 10634 OF 2026
Date: 2026.08.19
17:57:45 +0530
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…