Tangerine Spa vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Tangerine Spa, represented by its proprietor, filed a writ petition challenging a notification issued by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City. The petitioner operates a beauty and wellness business, including a spa, and holds valid registration certificates. The respondents allegedly visited the spa and demanded an order from the court to continue operations, referencing a previous High Court order. The petitioner contended they were already complying with the court's directions from a prior case (W.P. No. 16281 of 2010 and batch) dated September 28, 2021. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader, submitted that the petitioner was operating without municipal and GST permissions. However, they also stated they were not interfering with the business and would adhere to the court's previous directions.

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to strictly follow the directions issued in the 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 strictly in accordance with law. The Court also noted that if any complaint was made against the petitioner, the petitioner should cooperate with the inquiry. Furthermore, the Court advised the petitioner that it was open to them to obtain necessary permissions from the Municipal and GST authorities and to comply with the previous court order. The Court did not specifically rule on the legality or arbitrariness of the impugned notification itself, but rather focused on ensuring compliance with existing court directives and statutory requirements.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the 2nd Respondent (Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City) in issuing the impugned Notification No. (L&O/M4/3140/2010, dated 30.06.2010, is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, 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? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned notification was illegal and arbitrary. They contended that they were already complying with the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No. 16281 of 2010 and batch, dated September 28, 2021, which permitted them to run their business subject to certain conditions. They asserted that the respondents' insistence on a fresh court order to continue operations was unjustified. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, through the Assistant Government Pleader, 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 petitioner's business and would follow the directions previously issued by the Court in W.P. No. 16281 of 2010 and batch.