Bombay High Court: 24x7 Stores Are a Worldwide Practice, No Embargo on Petitioner Operating Post 11 PM
Sanchayita Lahkar
A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Advait M. Sethna held that there existed no legal basis or statutory prohibition against the petitioner’s right to operate its convenience store 24x7 under the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2017. The Court held that restrictions imposed orally by local police officers on the petitioner’s store operating beyond 10.00–11.00 p.m. were without authority and contrary to law. It directed that the petitioner cannot be coerced to limit its hours of operation, observing that the statutory framework does not authorise the imposition of such time-based restrictions on convenience stores. The Court noted the absence of any legal notification restricting operations of such establishments and allowed the writ petition accordingly.
The petitioner, Accelerate Productx Ventures Pvt. Ltd., operates a network of 24x7 convenience retail stores under the brand name “The New Shop.” The specific store in question is located at Hadapsar, Pune, and is registered under the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2017 (“2017 Act”). The petitioner approached the High Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, aggrieved by repeated oral coercion by the local police authorities to shut its store operations by 10.00–11.00 p.m., which the petitioner contended was without legal basis.
The petitioner asserted that the store is a duly registered “Shop & Establishment” under Section 2 of the 2017 Act and is not subject to any specific restrictions on operational hours under the said Act. The petitioner submitted that the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), Government of India, has recognised the petitioner as a start-up entity and it is also registered as a Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise (MSME).
According to the petitioner, respondent no. 3, the Sub-Inspector of Police at Hadapsar Police Station, started visiting the store and orally insisted on limiting the store’s operations to 10.00–11.00 p.m. The petitioner maintained that no statutory notification or restriction issued by respondent no. 1—the State of Maharashtra—or any other authority, authorised such coercion.
The petitioner relied on Section 11 of the 2017 Act, which empowers the State Government to notify opening and closing hours for different classes of establishments. In exercise of this power, the State had issued a notification dated 19 December 2017, prescribing restrictions for three specific categories: establishments where liquor is served, liquor retail shops, and cinema theatres. Subsequently, on 31 January 2020, theatres and cinema houses were removed from this list and permitted to operate 24 hours.
The petitioner argued that since convenience stores were not included in the list of restricted establishments and were not subject to any time-specific closure order, it was entitled to operate its store 24 hours a day.
Further, the petitioner made an application under the Right to Information Act to both the Commissioner of Police and the Industries Department, seeking confirmation of whether any permission was required from local police to operate beyond 10.00–11.00 p.m. The responses received did not indicate the existence of any restriction or necessity for police permission. Despite this, respondent no. 3 continued to visit the store and insist on limiting the hours of operation.
The petitioner submitted representations dated 27 June 2024 to respondent nos. 2 and 3, as well as to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, seeking redress. No response was received. Left with no alternative, the petitioner filed the present writ petition, contending that the police were acting beyond their authority and in violation of the petitioner’s statutory and constitutional rights.
In response, the State filed an affidavit through the Deputy Secretary, Industries, Energy, Labour and Mining Department, confirming that the 2017 Act did not impose any restrictions on convenience stores regarding operational hours. The affidavit explicitly stated that only establishments such as permit rooms, bars, and liquor shops were regulated, and that convenience stores were not subject to any such restrictions.
A separate affidavit was filed by respondent no. 3, the Senior Police Inspector at Hadapsar Police Station. The affidavit acknowledged that there had been a misunderstanding due to a perceived similarity between food establishments and convenience stores. It admitted that the petitioner had been orally advised to shut operations post 11.00 p.m. “by way of abundant caution,” but clarified that there was no legal prohibition or written order restricting the petitioner’s operations.
The Division Bench examined the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2017, particularly Sections 2 and 11. It observed that Section 11 is an enabling provision that allows the State Government to prescribe operational hours for different classes of establishments. The Court recorded that the State Government had exercised this power selectively, and only in respect of specific categories of establishments.
The Court observed: “It clearly appears from the reply affidavit as filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 that under the provisions of 2017 Act, there is no embargo for the establishments like that of the petitioner to conduct its shops 24 x 7 and/or post 10.00 – 11.00 p.m., as objected by respondent no. 3.”
It noted that the restrictions imposed on the petitioner stemmed from a misinterpretation of the relevant legal framework. The Court recorded: “Such objection appears to have been taken by inadvertence or a mistake as stated by respondent no. 3.”
The Court further examined the notifications issued by the State Government and clarified their scope. Referring to the notification dated 19 December 2017, it stated that the only establishments covered were those serving liquor, wine shops, theatres, and cinema exhibition houses. Referring to the subsequent notification dated 31 January 2020, it held: “By subsequent notification dated 31 January, 2020 issued in public interest, cinema exhibition houses and theatres are now permitted to operate 24 hours.” The Court thus concluded that the petitioner’s convenience store was never subject to any such restrictions.
It also took note of the affidavit filed by the Senior Police Inspector, which admitted that no formal order had ever been issued restricting the store’s operations. The Court stated: “It is also clarified in paragraph 9 of the reply affidavit filed by respondent no. 3, that there is no reason or intention to prohibit the petitioner to operate its lawful activity and due to sheer misunderstanding... the petitioner was informed to restrict its timings by way of abundant caution.”
The Court further recorded that: “Thus, respondent no. 3 has also clearly admitted in the reply affidavit that no restriction can be imposed on the petitioner’s operating its New Shop 24x7 and more particularly after 10.00 – 11.00 p.m.”
In a broader reflection on modern commerce, the Court observed: “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 acknowledged that such establishments could contribute positively to the economy by increasing consumer spending and employment, stating: “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.”
The Court finally held that the actions of respondent no. 3 had no basis in law and were the result of a mistaken understanding, now corrected by both respondents.
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition, granting the reliefs sought by the petitioner. It recorded:
“In light of the above discussion, the petition would be required to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause (b).”
Accordingly, the Court issued a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing that the petitioner shall not be coerced or forced by the police authorities to shut down or limit the operation of its convenience store after 10.00–11.00 p.m., thereby confirming the petitioner’s right to operate its business on a 24x7 basis.
It concluded with the following directive:
“Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Kaustubh R. Gidh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Tejas J. Kapre, Assistant Government Pleader
Case Title: Accelerate Productx Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:14879-DB
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1169 of 2025
Bench: Justice G. S. Kulkarni, Justice Advait M. Sethna
[Read/Download order]
