A division bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad has stayed a single-judge order that had previously lifted a municipal ban on the preparation, sale, and storage of non-vegetarian food in the vicinity of the Somnath Temple. The intervention by the division bench , led by Acting Chief Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Nirzar S. Desai, restores the restriction initially imposed by the District Magistrate of Gir-Somnath , ensuring that the prohibition remains active during the upcoming festival season.

The rapid judicial sequence unfolded on October 30, 2026 , when the state government successfully moved an urgent appeal before the division bench just hours after a single-judge bench had ruled in favor of several restaurant owners. The legal challenge, brought by the operators of multiple eateries, had sought to invalidate the August 10, 2026 , notification issued by the District Magistrate under Section 33(1)(w) of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951 . The government’s swift action in securing a stay reflects the heightened sensitivity surrounding religious sites and the expected influx of pilgrims during the forthcoming Deepavali and Gujarati New Year holidays.

Regulatory Authority and Public Order

At the heart of the litigation lies the interpretation of Section 33 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951 , which grants the administration authority to regulate traffic and preserve order in public places. The contested notification specifically prohibited non-vegetarian dishes at shops, hotels, and stalls along seven designated routes, as well as all areas within a 500-meter radius of the Somnath Temple.

The State of Gujarat argued that these restrictions were a valid exercise of police power necessary to prevent public annoyance and maintain the sanctity of a site of immense cultural and religious importance. During the hearing, the Advocate General highlighted the necessity of maintaining the peaceful atmosphere for the hundreds of thousands of devotees anticipated in the coming weeks. The court emphasized that it had considered the, "fact that during the forthcoming Deepavali and the Gujarati New Year large number of devotees are likely to visit Somnath Temple," and noted that allowing the sale of non-vegetarian items in the immediate vicinity could potentially cause, "inconvenience and annoyance, risk, danger or damage to the places in concern and its vicinity by such assembly."

The respondents, representing the affected restaurant owners, had contended that the local authorities were exceeding their statutory remit . Their counsel argued that the provisions of Section 33(1)(w) were primarily intended to license or control places of public amusement or entertainment and should not extend to restricting the culinary operations of private businesses. The respondents maintained that their establishments had been operating for decades without incident and that the abrupt prohibition threatened the livelihoods of their staff.

Legislative Interpretation of Section 33

The division bench scrutinized the scope of the governing legislation, which permits the administration to engage in: "prohibiting the keeping of places of public amusement or entertainment or assembly, in order to prevent obstruction, inconvenience, annoyance, risk, danger or damage to the residents or passengers in the vicinity."

While the respondents suggested that the authorities misinterpreted these clauses, the High Court found that the government’s reliance on established judicial precedents supported a more flexible application of these powers in the context of sensitive religious locations. The Advocate General bolstered this argument by citing various Supreme Court and High Court decisions that have historically upheld reasonable restrictions on commercial activities near major pilgrimage destinations across India, arguing that such precedents have not been overturned.

The division bench pointedly observed that the legal counsel for the restaurant owners could not produce a contrary judgment from a higher court that would invalidate the state’s regulatory stance. Consequently, the court found sufficient prima facie merit in the state’s position to grant a stay on the lower court’s decision. The judicial intervention ensures that the district administration’s notification remains the effective law governing these specific areas for the time being.

Procedural Status and Upcoming Timeline

The urgency with which the state government treated the matter was evident, as the appeal was heard before the single-judge order was even officially uploaded or published on the court’s repository. By taking up the matter at approximately 5:30 PM on the same day the initial verdict was delivered, the division bench effectively neutralized the potential for any immediate change in the operational status of the restaurants near the temple.

The court has issued a notice returnable by November 25, 2026 , to ensure that the ongoing litigation regarding the validity of the notification is resolved thoroughly. The bench also directed the appellants to complete the service of notice on the remaining parties by speed post and direct service.

As it stands, the final notification dated August 10, 2026 , continues to be in full force. The litigation has been set to be heard alongside a related pending case, Special Civil Application No. 14356 of 2018 , which was filed by several of the current respondents years earlier. This consolidation reflects the court’s intent to address the recurring conflict between commercial interests and the administrative regulation of religious precincts comprehensively. Until the matter is heard again in late November, the status quo as defined by the District Magistrate’s order remains protected by the High Court , preventing any change in the prohibition of meat and non-vegetarian food sales in the designated temple zones.