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. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026 Order:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 31st 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 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.09.08 18:59:09 +0530 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 31st 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