Bombay High Court
M/S. SAMRAT INTERNATIONAL RESTAURANT AND BAR THRU PROPRIETORversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU SECRETARY AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court stayed the suspension of the licence and directed the appellate authority to hear the appeal expeditiously, thereby allowing interim relief despite the pending statutory appeal.
Summary
The petitioner, Samrat International Restaurant & Bar, challenged the suspension of its orchestra licence under Rules 238 and 239 of the Public Amusement Rules, 1999, which was ordered on 31 August 2026 for 120 days. The petitioner had already filed a statutory appeal against the suspension but the appellate authority had not yet heard it. The State argued that the High Court should not entertain the writ petition because the statutory remedy was pending. The Court held that, given the short suspension period, there was a real risk that the appeal would become ineffective if not heard promptly, and therefore ordered a stay of the suspension and directed the appellate authority to hear the appeal expeditiously or at least consider a stay application within six weeks. The petition was disposed with directions for interim relief and a schedule for the petitioner to appear before the appellate authority.
Issues considered
- Can the High Court entertain a writ petition challenging a licence suspension when a statutory appeal has already been filed?
- Should the suspension order be stayed pending the hearing of the statutory appeal?
Subjects
- licence suspension
- public amusement rules
- stay order
- appellate remedy
- writ petition
- interim relief
Judgment
44-WP11879-2026.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11879 OF 2026
M/s. Samrat Internaional Restaurant & Bar
Restaurant and Bar through its proprietor
Shri Dinesh Bhaskar Shetty ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and ors. …Respondents
Mr. R. D. Soni, a/w Sujay Gawade, Mudita Pawar and Mihika
Save, for the Petitioner.
Mr. P. G. Sawant, AGP for the State.
SANTOSH
SUBHASH CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
KULKARNI DATED: 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.09.08
18:59:09 +0530 Order:-
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 31 st
August, 2026 passed by the Respondent No.2, whereby in
exercise of the powers under Rules 238 and 239 of the Rules
for 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 120 days from the date of
the said order.
3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
1/3
44-WP11879-2026.DOC
Petitioner has already filed a statutory appeal against the said
order alongwith an application for stay to the impugned order.
However, the said appeal is not taken up for hearing by
Respondent No.2.
4. The learned AGP for the Respondent-State submits that as
the statutory remedy of appeal has already been invoked, this
Court may not entertain the Petition at this stage.
5. Since the impugned order is passed on 31 st August, 2026
and the performance licence to operate the orchestra has been
suspended for a period of 120 days from the date of the said
order, 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 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 appeal
expeditiously and, if it is not possible to hear the appeal finally,
hear the application for stay to the order passed by the
Competent Authority within a period of six weeks, and, in the
2/3
44-WP11879-2026.DOC
meanwhile, grant limited interim relief.
7. The Writ Petition, thus, stands disposed with the following
directions :
(i) The Appellate Authority – Respondent No.2 is directed to
hear and decide the appeal preferred by the Petitioners, as
expeditiously as possible, and if it is not possible to hear
the appeal finally, hear the application for stay to the
execution and operation of the order passed by the
Competent Authority within a period of six weeks from
15th September, 2026.
(ii) The Petitioner shall appear before the Appellate Authority
on 15th September, 2026.
(iii) In the meanwhile, the execution and operation of the
impugned order shall remain stayed for a period of seven
weeks.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
3/3
Checking your session…