City Light (Blue Night) Resturant and Bar vs State of Maharashtra Thr Office of the and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

City Light (Blue Night) Resturant and Bar vs State of Maharashtra Thr Office of the and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition partly allowed: (i) execution and operation of the impugned suspension order stayed till the appeal is decided by respondent no. 2; (ii) Appellate Authority requested to hear and decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within four weeks of the petitioner's appearance; (iii) petitioner directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 19th January 2026.

Issue for consideration

Whether the execution and operation of the impugned order suspending the petitioner's orchestra/entertainment licence should be stayed during the pendency of the petitioner's appeal before the Appellate Authority, so that the appeal is not rendered infructuous. +1 more

Court's answer

The execution and operation of the impugned suspension order shall remain stayed till the decision of the appeal by the respondent no. 2 (Appellate Authority).

Ratio / Principle

The Appellate Authority/respondent no. 2 is requested to hear and 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.

Key takeaways

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 19th January 2026.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), N. J. Jamadar, J., 12th January 2026, partly allowed a writ petition by City Light (Blue Night) Restaurant and Bar (through its proprietor Bhanudas Vasudev Chavan) challenging an order dated 7th January 2026 of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mira-Bhayander, Vasai-Virar, suspending under Rule 238 and Rule 239 of the Entertainment Rules, 1960 the petitioner's licence to operate an Orchestra in the subject premises for 30 days. The petitioner had already availed the statutory remedy by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Court stayed the execution and operation of the impugned order till the appeal is decided by respondent no. 2, requested the Appellate Authority to hear and decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks of the petitioner's appearance, and directed the petitioner to appear before the Appellate Authority on 19th January 2026.

39-WP-520-2026.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 520 OF 2026

City Light (Blue Night) Restaurant and Bar through its proprietor Bhanudas Vasudev Chavan

..Petitioner

Versus

State of Maharashtra Through Office of The …Respondents Government Pleader, High Court, Appellate Side and Ors

Mr. R.D. Soni, with Sujay Gawade, Mudita Pawar and Mihika Save, i/b Shree & Co, for the Petitioner.

Mr. P.G. Sawant, AGP, for the Respondents-State.

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 12^th JANUARY 2026

P.C.:

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL

Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2026.01.12 19:13:04 +0530

The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 7^th January 2026, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mira-Bhayander, Vasai-Virar, thereby suspending the entertainment licence of the petitioner to operate an Orchestra in the subject premises for a period of 30 days under the provisions of Rule 238 and 239 of the Entertainment Rules, 1960.

Mr. Soni, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that, the impugned order is in teeth of the binding precedents of this Court. The

1/3

ARS

39-WP-520-2026.DOC

petitioner has availed the statutory remedy by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority. However, in the intervening period, the execution and operation of the impugned order deserves to be stayed, lest the Appeal would be rendered infructuous.

Learned AGP, on instructions, submits that, the respondent no. 2 will make an effort to decide the appeal within a period of four weeks.

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

Hence, the following order:

: ORDER :

i) The petition stands partly allowed. ii) The Appellate Authority/ respondent no. 2 is requested to hear and 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.

iii) The petitioner shall appear before the

Appellate Authority on 19^th January 2026.

2/3

ARS

39-WP-520-2026.DOC

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

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

3/3

ARS