Mojo Wellness Beauty And Spa vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Mojo Wellness Beauty and Spa, represented by its proprietor, filed a writ petition seeking to prevent police officials from interfering with its lawful business. The interference was allegedly under the guise of Notification No. (L&O)/M4/3140/2010, dated 30.06.2010, issued by the Commissioner of Police. The petitioner contended that they were operating their spa and wellness center without any violations and were being compelled to obtain specific court orders, similar to those granted in W.P. No. 16281 of 2010 and batch. The petitioner claimed to be already implementing the directions issued in that previous order. The respondents, including the State of Telangana and police authorities, argued that the petitioner was operating without necessary permissions from municipal authorities and GST authorities.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to strictly follow the directions issued in W.P. No. 16281 of 2010 and batch, dated 28.09.2021. These directions permit the operation of massage centers subject to maintaining customer records (dates of visits, names, verifiable addresses, and phone numbers), allowing police verification of these records, and ensuring that no immoral activity occurs under the guise of massage services. The Court also directed that the main door of the premises should not be kept closed during working hours. The respondents were permitted to ensure the petitioner's compliance with these directions and take appropriate steps if any deviation was observed. The petitioner was also advised to obtain necessary permissions from Municipal and GST authorities. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, as the matter was disposed of based on the submissions and prior orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the police officials' interference with the petitioner's lawful business, under the guise of a notification, is arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional, violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the day-to-day business of their spa and wellness center? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they were conducting a lawful business with valid registrations and were already adhering to the directions previously issued by this Court in W.P. No. 16281 of 2010 and batch. They contended that the police's insistence on further court orders was unjustified and arbitrary. They relied on the previous High Court order which permitted massage centers to operate subject to certain conditions. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader for Home, submitted that the petitioner was operating without obtaining necessary permissions from municipal authorities and GST authorities. However, they also stated that they were not interfering with the business and would follow the directions issued by the Court in the aforementioned writ petition.