M/S. Crystal Beauty And Wellness Spa vs. State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Crystal Beauty and Wellness 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 spa and possesses necessary registration certificates. Respondents visited the spa and questioned the operation without a court order, referencing a previous High Court decision. The petitioner claimed to be adhering to the directions in that prior order. The respondents argued that the petitioner was operating without municipal and GST permissions and stated they would follow the court's previous directions.

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to continue following 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 respondents were permitted to take appropriate steps in accordance with the law. The Court also noted that it was open for the petitioner to obtain permissions from the municipal and GST authorities. The Court did not explicitly set aside the impugned notification but effectively allowed the petitioner to operate under the conditions stipulated in the prior High Court order, subject to compliance and potential police action in case of deviation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the second respondent in issuing the notification dated June 30, 2010, is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that their business operations were in compliance with the directions issued by the High Court in a previous order dated September 28, 2021, in W.P. No. 16281 of 2010 and batch. They argued that despite adhering to these directions, the respondents were insisting on a specific court order for continued operation, which was arbitrary. The petitioner also asserted that the impugned notification was illegal and violative of constitutional rights. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, through the Assistant Government Pleader for Home, argued that the petitioner was operating without obtaining necessary permissions from municipal authorities and GST authorities. They stated that the police were not interfering with the business activities and would abide by the directions previously issued by the High Court.