GANESH MAHABAL VAITY v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS
Court: Bombay High Court
Judgment date:
Case summary
Bombay High Court judgment dated 2026-08-18. GANESH MAHABAL VAITY v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
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 Versus The Commissioner Of Police And Ors …Respondents WITH 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. th DATED: 18 AUGUST, 2026 Oral Order:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. th 2. The challenge in these Petitions is to an order dated 12 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 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 th operate the orchestra for a period of 30 days from 15 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. th 5.
Since the impugned order is passed on 12 August, 2026 and the performance licence to operate the orchestra has been th suspended for a period of 30 days from 15 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 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 th four weeks from 24 August, 2026. (ii) The Petitioners shall appear before the Appellate th Authority on 24 August, 2026. 3/4 (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
Source: Bombay High Court. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.