Charm Wellness Spa vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Charm Wellness Spa, represented by its proprietrix, filed a writ petition challenging a notification dated June 30, 2010, issued by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City. The petitioner argued that this action was illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, as well as the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli. The petitioner contended that they were operating a legitimate beauty and wellness business, holding necessary registrations, and were already complying with previous court orders. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader for Home, submitted that the petitioner was operating without municipal and GST permissions and stated they would adhere to existing court directions. The court noted that the petitioner was seeking to continue their business, and the respondents were not interfering but would follow prior court orders.

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to strictly follow the directions previously issued by the Court in W.P.No.16281 of 2010 and batch, dated September 28, 2021. These directions permit the operation of massage centers subject to maintaining detailed customer records, enabling police verification, and ensuring professional service delivery without immoral activities. The Court clarified that this order does not preclude the respondents from ensuring the petitioner's compliance with the prior directions. If any deviation is observed, the police are empowered to take appropriate action strictly in accordance with the law. The Court also noted that it is open for the petitioner to obtain necessary permissions from the Municipal and GST authorities. The ratio decidendi is that businesses operating under court supervision must adhere to the stipulated conditions, and authorities can take action upon non-compliance, while also reminding the petitioner of their obligation to secure statutory permissions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned 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 provisions of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned notification was illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory, violating their fundamental rights to equality and freedom of trade. They asserted that they were operating a lawful business and were already adhering to the directions issued by this Court in a previous batch of writ petitions (W.P.No.16281 of 2010 and batch) dated September 28, 2021. They claimed that despite compliance, the respondents were insisting on a further order from the court to continue their business. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents contended that the petitioner was operating without obtaining necessary permissions from municipal authorities and the GST authorities. They stated that they were not interfering with the petitioner's business activities and would follow the directions previously issued by this Court in W.P.No.16281 of 2010 and batch.