Epic Beauty Spa vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Epic Beauty Spa, represented by its proprietor, 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 salon and spa and holds valid registration certificates. The petitioner argued that the respondents were insisting on an order from the court to continue their business, despite the petitioner complying with previous court directions. The respondents contended that the petitioner was operating without necessary permissions from municipal authorities and GST, and stated they would adhere to prior court orders. The court was considering the petitioner's plea to declare the police notification illegal and arbitrary.

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to strictly follow the directions issued in its previous order dated September 28, 2021, in W.P.No.16281 of 2010 and batch. The court clarified that this order did not preclude the respondents from ensuring the petitioner's compliance with those directions. If any deviation was observed, the police were permitted to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law. The court also advised the petitioner to obtain necessary permissions from the Municipal and GST authorities. The court's reasoning was based on the submissions of both parties and the precedent set by the earlier order, which allowed massage centers to operate under specified conditions, including maintaining customer records and allowing police verification. The court did not explicitly set aside the impugned notification but effectively allowed the business to continue under the conditions previously laid down.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Police) in issuing the impugned notification No.(L&O)/M4/3140/2010, dated 30.06.2010, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the provisions of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli? The petitioner argued that the notification was arbitrary and illegal, infringing upon their right to conduct business. The petitioner also relied on a previous High Court order dated September 28, 2021, in W.P.No.16281 of 2010 and batch, which permitted massage centers to operate under specific conditions. The respondents argued that the petitioner was operating without municipal and GST permissions and stated they would follow the court's previous directions.