Saurabh Shekhar Shetty vs the Deputy Commissioner of Police — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Saurabh Shekhar Shetty vs the Deputy Commissioner of Police — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both writ petitions disposed of with directions: respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner to decide the pending appeals on merits (petitioner to appear on 13.10.2025, hearing date to be fixed, natural justice to be observed); interim stay to continue until disposal of the appeals and, if adverse orders are passed, for a further two weeks; pending applications, if any, also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner should be directed to decide the petitioner's pending appeals against suspension of the orchestra amusement licenses on merits, after fixing a specific date of hearing and following natural justice. +1 more

Court's answer

The Court held that since the petitioner had availed the substantive remedy of filing appeals before respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner and could not be faulted for the appeals not being decided, the limited relief claimed could be granted.

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner is directed to decide the petitioner's pending appeals on merits.

Key takeaways

The petitioner shall appear before respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner on 13.10.2025, on which date the said respondent shall fix a date for hearing.ratio¶7
Reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the petitioner and principles of natural justice shall be complied with while deciding the pending appeals on merits.ratio¶7
The interim stay granted by this Court in both petitions shall continue to operate until the pending appeals are decided by respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (O.O.C.J.), Manish Pitale, J. (09.10.2025): Saurabh Shekhar Shetty filed two writ petitions against orders dated 24.07.2025 and 30.07.2025 suspending the amusement licenses granted for orchestra to him; appeals against those orders were already pending before respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner without a specific date of hearing being allotted. The Court had granted interim relief on 26.08.2025 keeping the suspension orders in abeyance. Holding that the petitioner, having availed the substantive remedy of appeal, could not be at fault for the appeals remaining undecided, the Court disposed of both petitions by directing the Divisional Commissioner to decide the appeals on merits, with the petitioner to appear on 13.10.2025, a hearing date to be fixed, and reasonable opportunity and natural justice to be observed. The interim stay was directed to continue until disposal of the appeals and, in the event of adverse orders, for a further period of two weeks to enable the petitioner to challenge them.

917 & 57_WPL_26055 & 3636_25.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 26055 OF 2025

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 3636 OF 2025

Saurabh Shekhar Shetty … Petitioner vs. Deputy Commissioner of Police and others … Respondents

Mrs. Veena Thadhani a/w. Ms. Rutuja Gaikwad for petitioner in both petitions.

Mr. Vikrant Parshurami, AGP for respondents-State in WPL/26055/2025. Mr. Suraj Gupte, AGP for respondents-State in WP/3636/2025.

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : 09^th OCTOBER, 2025

P.C. :

. The petitioner in these petitions is aggrieved by impugned orders dated 24.07.2025 [challenged in Writ Petition No.3636 of 2025] and 30.07.2025 [challenged in Writ Petition (Lodging) No.26055 of 2025], whereby amusement licenses granted for orchestra to the petitioner, have been suspended.

It is undisputed that these impugned orders are made subject matter of challenge by way of appeals before respondent No.2Divisional Commissioner. While the appeals are pending, it is the grievance of the petitioner that specific date of hearing is not allotted and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to rush to this Court by way of these two petitions to seek relief.

This Court granted interim relief in favour of the petitioner in both these petitions on 26.08.2025. As a consequence, the impugned orders of suspension of amusement licenses for orchestra, are in

PRIYAKAMBLI Digitally signedby PRIYAKAMBLIDate:2025.10.1010:39:19+0530

1/3

917 & 57_WPL_26055 & 3636_25.doc

abeyance. The stay orders have continued to operate during the pendency of these petitions.

This Court is of the opinion that since substantive appeals filed by the petitioner, are pending before respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner, it would be appropriate that the appeals are decided on merits and during the pendency of the appeals, the interim order granted by this Court continues to operate.

The petitioner has also prayed for a further relief to the extent that in the event the respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner passes adverse orders against the petitioner, the interim stay may be extended for a specific period of time, to enable the petitioner to challenge such orders, if the occasion arises.

The learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the aforesaid contentions made on behalf of the petitioner. But, this Court is of the opinion that since the petitioner has indeed availed of the substantive remedy of filing appeals before respondent No.2Divisional Commissioner and the petitioner cannot be stated to be at fault for the appeals not having been decided on merits, the limited relief claimed by the petitioner can be granted.

In view of the above, it is directed that respondent No.2Divisional Commissioner shall decide the pending appeals of the petitioner on merits. For that purpose, the petitioner shall appear before respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner on 13.10.2025. On the said date, the said respondent shall fix a date for hearing. The said respondent shall grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and principles of natural justice shall be complied with, while deciding the pending appeals on merits.

2/3

917 & 57_WPL_26055 & 3636_25.doc

Priya Kambli

The interim stay granted by this Court in both the petitions shall continue to operate, till the pending appeals are decided by the said respondent.

In the event respondent No.2 passes adverse orders against the petitioner in the appeals, the interim stay granted by this Court shall continue to operate for a further period of two weeks, to enable the petitioner to challenge such orders, if the occasion arises.

With these directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(MANISH PITALE, J)

3/3