1 903wp9027-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY spb CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9027 OF 2011 Smt. Darshan Kaur Wasan, Proprietor of New Punjab (Angels) Restaurant and Bar ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. ---- Mr. P. C. Kansara for the Petitioner. Ms. P.S.Cardozo, AGP for the Respondents. ----- CORAM : G.S.GODBOLE, J. DATE : 09th NOVEMBER, 2011. P. C. : 1 Heard Mr. Kansara for the Petitioner and Ms. Cardozo, AGP for the Respondents. 2 Rule. In view of the limited controversy involved in the Petition, the Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. 3 An order dated 12th October, 2011 has been passed against the Petitioner in proceedings under section 33, read with section 162 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, read with Rule 27 of the Rules for Keeping Places of Public Entertainment in Greater Bombay, framed by the Commissioner of 2 903wp9027-11.sxw Police, Bombay, under Section 33 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. 4 The Petitioner has filed an Appeal under Rule 28-A of the said Rules before the Appellate Authority, namely, the State Government on 21.10.2011 and has also filed an Application for stay. 5 Ms. Cardozo, learned AGP, on instructions states that this Appeal is already fixed for hearing and final disposal on 15.11.2011 by the Appellate Authority and that the Appeal will he heard and decided as expeditiously as possible. 6 Since the Petitioner has a statutory alternate remedy which is efficacious, no case for exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is made out save and except that the limited protection can be granted to the Petitioner. Mr. Kansara has drawn my attention to various orders passed by the learned single Judges of this Court and as also the Division Bench of this court which are annexed to the Petition. He draws my attention to the administrative instructions issued by the authority passing the impugned order to the effect that the impugned order should be implemented after a period of 30 days which is a statutory period of Appeal and unless in the meantime, the concerned aggrieved party obtains a stay from the 3 903wp9027-11.sxw Appellate Authority. 7 The impugned order suspends the license given to the Petitioner for a period of six weeks. Pursuant to the administrative instructions issued by the Licensing Authority who has passed the impugned order, the same is not yet implemented and in terms of the administrative instructions, the order was not to be implemented till 13th November, 2011, as the same has been communicated to the Petitioner on 14th October, 2011. In view of the fact that the Petitioner has already filed Appeal on 21.10.2011 alongwith the stay Application and the Appellate Authority has fixed the Appeal for hearing on 15.11.2011, I think it appropriate to grant a limited protection to the Petitioner till 16.11.2011 i.e. for a period of one week from today. The Petitioner is, however, free to request to the Appellate Authority to grant further protection in case the Appeal is not decided on or before 16.11.2011 and such request will have to be considered by the Appellate Authority on its own merits. In case the Authority is not in a position to pronounce the order in Appeal then it must at least pronounce the operative order on the stay Application on 15th November, 2011. 8 All contentions of the parties on merits of the controversy are expressly kept open. Rule is made partly absolute in the aforesaid terms. 4 903wp9027-11.sxw 9 All parties and the Appellate Authority to act on an authenticated copy of this order issued by the Registry. AGP to communicate gist of this order to all the Respondents including the Appellate Authority. (G.S.GODBOLE, J.) ....