Partly allowed¶30

M/S Shrrnidhi Enterprises (Mela ) Restraurant and Bar Throu. Uday N Shetty v. State of Maharashtra Throu. Officer of the Govt Pleader and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Feb 2026WP/2013/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition 2013 of 2026, Bombay High Court, N. J. Jamadar J., entertainment licence suspension, Orchestra, Divisional Commissioner Konkan Division, Rules 238 and 239 Entertainment Rules 1960, appeal before Appellate Authority, interim stay of impugned order, decide appeal within four weeks, appear on 25 February 2026, petition partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay of the execution and operation of the impugned order suspending the petitioner's entertainment licence until the Appellate Authority decides the appeal; Respondent No.2 requested to decide the appeal preferably within four weeks of the petitioner's appearance; petitioner directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 25 February 2026. ¶30

M/S Shrrnidhi Enterprises (Mela ) Restraurant and Bar Throu. Uday N Shetty vs State of Maharashtra Throu. Officer of the Govt Pleader and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

903-WP2013-2026.DOC

¶2

Santosh

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2013 OF 2026

¶6

M/S Shrrnidhi Enterprises (Mela) Restaurant And Bar Through Uday N Shetty

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Maharashtra Throu. Officer Of The Govt Pleader And Ors …Respondents

¶10

SANTOSH SUBHASH Mr. R. D. Soni, a/w S. N. Gawade, i/b Shree & Co., for the KULKARNI Petitioner.

¶11

Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.02.14 10:50:00 +0530

¶12

Mr. P. G. Sawant, AGP for the State – Respondent No.1.

¶13

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 11^th FEBRUARY, 2026

¶14

Order:

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 7^th February, 2026, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, thereby, suspending the entertainment licence of the petitioner to operate an Orchestra in the subject premises under the provisions of Rules 238 and 239 of the Entertainment Rules, 1960.

¶17

Mr. Soni, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that, the impugned order is in teeth of the binding precedents of this Court. The petitioner has availed the statutory remedy by

¶18

1/3

¶19

903-WP2013-2026.DOC

¶20

filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority. However, in the intervening period, the execution and operation of the impugned order deserves to be stayed.

¶21

Mr. Sawant, the Learned AGP, on instructions, submits that Respondent No.2 will make an effort to decide the appeal within a period of four weeks from today.

¶22

As the petitioner has availed the statutory remedy, it may be expedient in the interest of justice that, the said appeal is decided as expeditiously as possible, and, having regard to the nature of the challenge, it may be appropriate to stay the execution and operation of the impugned order till the appeal is decided by the Appellate Authority, lest the appeal is rendered infructuous.

¶23

Hence, the following order:

¶24

: O RD E R :

¶25

(i) The petition stands partly allowed.

¶26

(ii) Respondent No.2 is requested to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible and, preferably, within a period of four weeks from the appearance of the petitioner before the Appellate Authority.

¶27

2/3

¶28

903-WP2013-2026.DOC

¶29

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Appellate Authority on 25^th February, 2026.

¶30

(iv) In the meanwhile, the execution and operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed till the decision of the appeal by respondent No.2.

¶31

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

¶32

3/3

M/S Shrrnidhi Enterprises (Mela ) Restraurant and Bar Throu. Uday N Shetty v. State of Maharashtra Throu. Officer of the Govt Pleader and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Shrrnidhi Enterprises (Mela ) Restraurant and Bar Throu. Uday N Shetty v. State of Maharashtra Throu. Officer of the Govt Pleader and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chetan Sunderji Bhanushali and Ors. vs Hema Ramesh Chheda and Ors.

Shri. Pramod Budghmal Nahar and Another vs Late Mohan G. Waghavale (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. Ganesh M. Waghawle and Others

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs Mg Automotivef (Bus and Coach) Private Ltd.

Amreeta Rao Singh vs Harinandan Rambalidar Gupta and Anr.

Shri Raja Tahilram Balchandani D/H and Ors. Smt Sunita Raja Balchandani vs Smt Veena Gangadas Chatwani

Manoj Manilal Gala vs Eric Parvez Khaver and Ors.