Greeshma Wellness Spa vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Greeshma Wellness Spa, operates a beauty and wellness business including a spa. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to declare a notification issued by the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City) as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of constitutional provisions and the Hyderabad City Police Act. The petitioner argued they were already complying with prior court directions from a batch of writ petitions decided on 28.09.2021. The respondents contended that the petitioner was operating without necessary municipal and GST permissions. The court was informed that the respondents would adhere to the previous court order, and the petitioner was directed to comply with those directions.

Held

The Court disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the petitioner to strictly adhere to the directions previously issued by this Court in its order dated 28.09.2021 in W.P.No.16281 of 2010 and batch. The Court clarified that this order did not prevent the respondents from ensuring the petitioner's compliance with those prior 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, the petitioner was expected to cooperate with any inquiry. Furthermore, the petitioner was advised that it was open for them to obtain necessary permissions from the Municipal and GST authorities and to comply with the order dated 28.09.2021. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the core of the decision was to enforce existing judicial pronouncements and statutory compliance.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notification issued by the 2nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli, as contended by the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner is operating the business without obtaining necessary municipal and GST permissions, as contended by the respondents? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned notification was illegal and arbitrary. They asserted that they were already operating their spa business in compliance with the directions issued by this Court in a previous order dated 28.09.2021 in W.P.No.16281 of 2010 and batch. They submitted that despite this compliance, the respondents were insisting on obtaining a specific court order to continue their business, which they found unreasonable. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents, through the Assistant Government Pleader, argued that the petitioner was operating their business activities without obtaining the requisite permissions from the municipal authorities and GST authorities as required by law. They stated that they were not interfering with the petitioner's business activities and would follow the directions previously issued by the Court.