Bombay High Court: In the present case, the petitioner’s grievance was that a new concept of 24×7 shopping for daily needs introduced by the petitioner under its brand “The New Shop” situated at Hadapsar, Pune, was being illegally hindered by the police. The petitioner filed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for this Court to issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondents 2 and 3 not to coerce and force the petitioner to shut its convenience store namely “the New Shop” and its operations after 10/11 p.m.
The Division Bench of G.S. Kulkarni* and Advait M. Sethna, JJ., noted that under the provisions of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2017 (‘the 2017 Act’), there was no embargo for the establishments like the petitioner’s convenience store, to conduct its shops 24×7 and/or post 10/11p.m. The Court opined that the objection by Respondent 3-police inspector, appeared to have been taken by mistake as it was clear that the restriction on the opening and closing hours were prescribed only for the specific establishments like Permit Rooms, Beer Bars, Dance Bars, Hookah Parlour, Discotheques, and the establishments in which liquor of any kind was served and also liquor shops, theatres, and cinema exhibition houses, and this did not include the petitioner’s shop.
Background
The petitioner, engaged in the business of operating, franchising, and licensing Pan India, a highly specialized network of 24×7 convenience retail stores under the name “The New Shop” was catering to the common needs of the public at large. The petitioner stated that it was also a recognized startup by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India (DPIIT) and a certified and registered Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME). The petitioner’s convenience store falls within the definition of “Shop & Establishment” under Section 2 of the 2017 Act.
The petitioner had duly complied with the relevant guidelines and regulations and obtained registration of its shop under the provisions of the 2017 Act for running a “convenience store” for the benefit of public, located within a commercial complex situated in Hadapsar, Pune. It was stated that no such restrictions were imposed under any law, and no such conditions were imposed by Respondent 1, who was the competent authority to regulate opening and closing hours of various establishments under the 2017 Act. Thus, the actions of Respondent 3-police inspector were arbitrary and illegal, as the police had no jurisdiction to regulate the timings in relation to the petitioner’s store. It was stated that the 2017 Act conferred powers on Respondent 1 to regulate the opening and closing hours of different classes of establishments in State of Maharashtra, which nowhere imposed any restriction on closing hours (beyond 10/11 p.m.) qua such convenience stores, hence, it was deemed that a convenience store was allowed to operate 24 x 7.
Respondent 1 issued a notification dated 19-12-2017, whereby it restricted operating hours in respect of only “three classes” of establishments, (a) permit rooms, beer bars, dance bars, hookah parlours, discotheques and all other establishments where liquor of any kind was served; (b) wine and all kinds of liquor shops; and (c) theatres and cinema exhibition houses. Further, as per order dated 31-1-2020, Respondent 1 lifted the previous operating hours restrictions imposed on ‘theatres and cinema exhibition houses” and allowed these establishments to operate 24 hours. Thus, the petitioner filed the present petition as being aggrieved by the breach of its statutory and constitutional rights.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court took note of the reply affidavit filed by Respondent 1 that under the provisions of the 2017 Act, there was no embargo for the establishments like that of the petitioner to conduct its shops 24×7 and/or post 10/11p.m., as objected to by Respondent 3. The Court opined that such objection appeared to have been taken by inadvertence or by mistake as it was clear that the restriction on the opening and closing hours were prescribed only for the specific establishments like Permit Rooms, Beer Bars, Dance Bars, Hookah Parlour, Discotheques, and the establishments in which liquor of any kind was served and also liquor shops, theatres, and cinema exhibition houses, and this did not include the petitioner’s shop.
The Court opined that there was no justification whatsoever for Respondent 3 to impose any restrictions on the petitioner to conduct its shop. The Court noted that in the reply affidavit filed by Respondent 3, it was stated that there was some confusion due to the petitioner also selling food items and a presumption that the embargo as applicable to the eating house might apply to the petitioner’s case. The Court also noted that there were no orders passed in writing and the petitioner was orally called upon not to operate after 11 p.m.
It was also clarified in the reply affidavit filed by Respondent 3, that there was no reason to prohibit the petitioner to operate its lawful activity and merely due to sheer misunderstanding, the petitioner was told to restrict its timings, hence such oral insistence on Respondent 3’s part was not in accordance with law. Thus, no restriction could be imposed on the petitioner’s operating its New Shop 24×7 and more particularly after 10/11 p.m.
The Court allowed the petition and opined that in contemporary times, the concept of 24×7 shops of such nature was a popular concept worldwide. It brought convenience, ease, and flexibility to the consumers to make purchases, more particularly for the people with non-standard working hours. It helped in boosting the economy by increasing consumer spending, and by creating additional employment opportunities, which was crucial for a large country like ours, where unemployment was a major challenge. Thus, to recognize such advantages and to achieve progress commensurate with the global standards, no restriction was imposed by the State on the timings of such stores.
[Accelerate Productx Ventures (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 824, decided on 1-4-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice G.S. Kulkarni
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Kaustubh R. Gidh for the petitioner.
For the Respondents: Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the State/Respondents 1 to 3.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
