Samarjitsingh Narang Owner of Aishwarya Restaurant and Bar vs Commissioner of Police and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Samarjitsingh Narang Owner of Aishwarya Restaurant and Bar vs Commissioner of Police and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

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

Issue for consideration

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

Court's answer

The petition stands partly allowed; 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.

Ratio / Principle

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.

Key takeaways

The petitioner shall appear before the Appellate Authority on 19th January 2026.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 539 of 2026, decided on 12 January 2026 by N. J. Jamadar, J. The petition challenged an order dated 5 January 2026 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mira-Bhayander, Vasai-Virar, suspending the petitioner's entertainment licence to operate an Orchestra in his restaurant premises for 30 days under Rule 238 and 239 of the Entertainment Rules, 1960. Since the petitioner had already availed the statutory remedy by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority, the Court did not adjudicate the merits of the suspension order. It partly allowed the petition: the Appellate Authority (respondent no. 2) was requested to hear and decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks from the petitioner's appearance (fixed for 19 January 2026), and, in the meanwhile, the execution and operation of the impugned order was stayed till the decision of the appeal.

43-WP-539-2026.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 539 OF 2026

Samarjitsingh Narang Owner of Aishwarya Restaurant and Bar

..Petitioner

Versus Commissioner of Police, Mira Bhayander Vasai …Respondents Virar Commissionerate and Ors

Mr. Vijay Patil, with Vivek Rane and Kuldeep Jain, 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 19:13:22 +0530

The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 5^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. Patil, 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 filing an appeal before

1/3

ARS

43-WP-539-2026.DOC

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

43-WP-539-2026.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