In a major relief to a petitioner who pleaded for keeping his convenience store open 24x7, the bench of Justice Girish Kulkarni and Justice Advait M. Sethna of Bombay High Court, allowed the petition, reasoning that in “contemporary times the concept of 24x7 shops of such nature is a popular concept worldwide.”

The instant case was about the petitioner, (Accelerate Products Pvt.Ltd) whose grievance was that Respondents No.3 , the police officers were arbitrarily imposing closing hour restrictions on his conveince store, ‘The New Shop’ preventing it from being kept open and operating beyond 10pm-11pm.

It was the petitioner’s case that he is engaged in a highly specialised business of operating, franchising and licensing of a convenience retail store which is a pan India startup recognised under the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India (DPIIT).

He also stated that the enterprise is a certified and registered Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise (MSME) and he is the owner of the registered trademark for the brand name “The New Shop”. He maintains that the shop falls under the definition of “Shop & Establishment” under Section 2 of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishment Act, 2017.

The petitioner was aggrieved by police officers, under whose jurisdiction his shop was located, imposing a closing hour condition beyond 11pm arbitrarily and illegally whereas no such restrictions were imposed by the State of Maharashtra (Respondent No.1) which is the competent authority in closing and opening of establishments under the 2017 Act.

He contended that by way of a notification dated 19th December, 2017, under Section 11 of the 2017 Act, Respondent No.1 had notified restricted operating hours of establishments, catogorizing them into “three classes.” Permit rooms, beer bars, dance bars, hookah parlours, discotheques came under the purview of the first class. Second, was wine and all kinds of liquor shops. Third, theaters and cinema exhibition houses (restrictions imposed on this class were lifted through notification dated 31st January 2020 and these were allowed to operate 24x7.)

The petitioner stated that he had filed an application through RTI seeking clarification from Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 whether any permission from local police was required to be obtained to operate beyond 10-11p.m. In reply to such clarification, he held that nowhere was it specified or mentioned that a convinence store had restricted operating hours nor was there a mention of any permission required to operate the store. The petitioner mentioned that a similar application was made to the State Authorities at Mantralaya, however there was no reply to his query.

Aggrieved by the coercive actions of the Respondent no. 3, the petitioner addressed representations to Respondent No. 2 and 3 and also a representation was addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Police but these representations were not answered by either of the authorities. Personal visits were also made by the Petitioner’s representative but redressal of his grievance were fruitless. Aggrieved by this the petitioner filed a writ petition in the Bombay High court.

It was only after the Court issued notices to the Writ Petition that two replies were filed by the Respondents. Respondent No. 1’s affidavit, filed by Deputy Secretary, Smt. Roshani Dinesh Kadam-Patil, clarified that section 2(2) of the 2017 Act defines "day" as a 24-hour period and allows restrictions on operating hours.

Section 11 of the 2017 Act imposes reasonable restrictions on the operation, i.e., opening and closing hours for different classes of establishments, shopping complexes or malls or for different areas and for different periods. A 2017 notification had set limits on liquor-serving establishments and cinemas, but a 2020 notification allowed cinemas to operate 24x7. The affidavit also confirmed that no law restricts the petitioner’s shop from operating 24x7, including after 10–11 p.m.

The Court concluded that Respondent No. 1’s reply clearly suggested that there is no restriction whatsoever on the petitioner’s shop operating 24x7, including after 10–11 p.m. The objection by Respondent No. 3 was due to an inadvertent mistake, based on the incorrect assumption that restrictions on eating houses applied to the petitioner. The Court noted there were no written orders imposing such restrictions. It also observed that Respondent No. 3 had no intent to prohibit the petitioner’s lawful business but acted out of caution due to a misunderstanding. Respondent No. 3’s reply affidavit mentions an admission that no restrictions could be imposed on the petitioner’s shop.

Consequently, allowing the petition, the court ruled that “In the contemporary times, the concept of 24x7 shops of such nature is a popular concept worldwide. It brings convenience, ease and flexibility to the consumers to make purchases, more particularly for the persons with non-standard working hours. It is also believed to boost the economy by increased consumer spending, as also by creating additional employment opportunities, which is crucial for a large country like ours, where unemployment is a major challenge. It appears that recognizing such advantages and to achieve progress commensurate with the global standards, no restriction has been imposed by the State on the timings of such stores”.

Case Title:-Accelerate Productx Ventures Pvt Ltd Vs State Of Maharashtra ,W.P. 1169 of 2025

Adv. for Petitioners:- Mr.Kaustubh .R.Gidh

Adv.for Respondents:- Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 3.