Authorities must decide license renewal applications for water park operations within a specific time-bound period.

The Petitioner, incorporated in 1993, established an amusement and water park in Vadodara after obtaining necessary approvals and licenses in 1994 and 2012.

The water park license was renewed periodically until December 31, 2018.

The Petitioner applied for renewal on December 27, 2018, and again in December 2019, but operations were subsequently halted due to the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020.

Despite submitting comprehensive applications and requisite No Objection Certificates (NOCs) on January 10, 2025, and January 19, 2026, the respondent authorities failed to take a decision, resulting in the continued closure of the park and financial loss.

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the authorities to decide the pending renewal applications.

Whether the respondent authorities are legally obligated to decide the Petitioner's pending license renewal applications within a reasonable timeframe.

Whether the continued inaction of the authorities violates the Petitioner's rights under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.

The court primarily exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental and legal rights.

It applied the principle of administrative responsiveness and the duty of statutory authorities to act upon applications in a time-bound manner to prevent arbitrary deprivation of the right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g).

The court noted that the Petitioner had diligently pursued the renewal process by submitting all necessary safety compliance documents, insurance certificates, and NOCs as requested by the authorities between 2020 and 2026.

The court found that the water park remained closed solely due to administrative "inaction," which caused substantial financial hardship.

Rather than adjudicating on the merits of the license renewal itself, the court relied on the submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader (AGP), who, upon instructions, committed that the authorities would decide the pending applications dated January 10, 2025, and January 19, 2026, within a specific timeframe.

This effectively resolved the grievance of administrative delay without the court's interference in the discretionary powers of the licensing authority.

The court held that if the Petitioner faces further difficulties following the decision of the authority, they are at liberty to file a fresh petition.

Rule was made absolute to this extent.