Disposed¶27

Sadhu Koraga Shetty v. Commissioner of Police Mira Bhayander Vasai Virar and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Apr 2026WP/4638/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Entertainment licence suspension (25 days) challenged before Bombay High Court; statutory appeal would be illusory if suspension allowed to exhaust before hearing; execution and operation of suspension order stayed till appellate decision; Appellate Authority to decide within four weeks; Sadhu Koraga Shetty v. Commissioner of Police, W.P. No. 4638 of 2026, N. J. Jamadar, J., 10 April 2026.

What did the court decide?

Execution and operation of the impugned suspension order stayed till the decision of the Appeal by Respondent No. 3; Petitioner directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 20 April 2026; Respondent No. 3 requested to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within four weeks from the Petitioner's appearance. ¶27

Sadhu Koraga Shetty vs Commissioner of Police Mira Bhayander Vasai Virar and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Digitally signed SANTOSH by SANTOSHSUBHASH SUBHASH KULKARNI KULKARNI Date:2026.04.10 21:52:20 +0530

¶2

15&16-WP4638-2026.DOC

¶3

Santosh

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 4638 OF 2026

Sadhu Koraga Shetty

...Petitioner

Versus

The Commissioner of Police and ors. …Respondents

¶11

Mr. Vijay Patil, Sr. Advocate a/w Bhavesh Paithare, Vivek Rane, i/b Kuldeep Jain, for the Petitioner.

¶12

Smt. Neha Bhide, GP, a/w O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP, and G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP, for the State – Respondent Nos.1 and 3.

¶13

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 10^th APRIL, 2026

¶14

PC:-

¶15

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶16

The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 4^th April, 2026 whereby, the entertainment licence of the Petitioner has been suspended for a period of 25 days from 6 April 2026.

¶17

The Petitioner has preferred an appeal against the said order, on 6 April 2026.

¶18

It is the grievance of the Petitioner that the Petitioner has preferred an application for stay to the impugned order passed by the Competent Authority on 4^th April, 2026, however, the said

¶19

1/3

¶20

15&16-WP4638-2026.DOC

¶21

application has not been heard, and, in the meanwhile, the premises has been closed by the Respondent No.2.

¶22

Mr. Patil, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that, the appeal would be rendered infructous if the impugned order is not stayed.

¶23

Ms. Bhide, the learned GP submitted that as the Petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy, the appeal may be directed to be decided expeditiously.

¶24

Since the Petitioner has preferred the appeal almost instantaneously, the Appellant’s statutory remedy of appeal would be rendered illusory, if the appeal is not heard and the order of suspension is allowed to exhaust.

¶25

The Petitioner shall appear before the Appellate Authority on 20 April 2026.

¶26

The Respondent No.3 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