Melody Beauty And Spa vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Melody Beauty and Spa, represented by its proprietor Shaik Hameed, filed a writ petition challenging a notification dated June 30, 2010, issued by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City. The petitioner operates a beauty and wellness business and holds valid registrations. The respondents, including the State of Telangana and police authorities, allegedly insisted that the petitioner obtain a court order to continue operating, despite the petitioner claiming to adhere to previous court directions. The petitioner argued that this action was illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated constitutional provisions and the Hyderabad City Police Act. The respondents contended that the petitioner was operating without necessary permissions from municipal authorities and GST authorities.

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to strictly follow the directions issued in the previous order dated September 28, 2021, in W.P. No. 16281 of 2010 and batch. The Court clarified that this order does not preclude the respondents from ensuring the petitioner's compliance with those directions. If any deviation is observed, the police are permitted to take appropriate steps strictly in accordance with the law. The Court also noted that if any complaint is made against the petitioner, the petitioner shall cooperate with the inquiry. Furthermore, the petitioner was advised to obtain necessary permissions from the Municipal and GST authorities. The Court did not explicitly set aside the impugned notification but effectively allowed the business to operate under the previously laid down conditions and the petitioner's responsibility to obtain statutory permissions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned notification dated 30.06.2010 is illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory, violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli? (Question of law and fact) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents' insistence on a court order to continue business, despite compliance with previous court directions in W.P. No. 16281 of 2010 and batch, was illegal and arbitrary. They relied on the said previous order which permitted massage centers to operate under specific conditions. Respondents' contention: The respondents argued that the petitioner was operating without obtaining necessary permissions from municipal authorities and GST authorities. They stated they were not interfering with the petitioner's business and would follow the directions issued by the Court in W.P. No. 16281 of 2010 and batch.