Kiyara Wellness Spa vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Kiyara Wellness Spa, represented by its proprietor, filed a writ petition challenging a notification issued by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, dated June 30, 2010. The petitioner argued that this action was illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated their fundamental rights. The petitioner stated they were engaged in the beauty and wellness business, including spa services, and held valid registrations. They claimed that despite complying with previous court directions issued on September 28, 2021, in a batch of similar writ petitions (W.P.No. 16281 of 2010 and batch), the police were demanding a specific court order to continue their business. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader for Home, contended that the petitioner was operating without necessary municipal and GST permissions and that they would adhere to the court's previous orders.

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to strictly adhere to the directions previously issued by the Court in its order dated September 28, 2021, in W.P.No. 16281 of 2010 and batch. The Court clarified that this order did not prevent the respondents (police) from ensuring the petitioner's compliance with those directions. If any deviation was observed, the police were empowered to take appropriate steps strictly in accordance with the law. The Court also noted that if any complaint was made against the petitioner, they were expected to cooperate with the police inquiry. Furthermore, the petitioner was advised to obtain necessary permissions from the municipal and GST authorities and comply with the court's prior order. The Court did not make any specific findings on the legality of the impugned notification itself, as the matter was resolved based on compliance with existing directions and the petitioner's obligation to obtain necessary permissions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the Commissioner of Police in issuing the impugned notification dated June 30, 2010, was illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory, violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that the impugned notification was illegal and arbitrary, forcing them to seek a specific court order to continue their legitimate business, despite already complying with the directions issued in a previous batch of writ petitions on September 28, 2021. They argued that the police's insistence on a new order was unwarranted and violated their constitutional rights to practice their profession. Respondents' Argument: The respondents argued that the petitioner was operating their business without obtaining the requisite permissions from municipal authorities and the GST department. They stated that the police were not interfering with the petitioner's business activities and would follow the directions previously issued by the court.