Dannon Spa And Saloon vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Dannon Spa and Saloon, represented by its proprietrix, filed a writ petition challenging a notification issued by the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, dated June 30, 2010. The petitioner operates a beauty and wellness business, including a spa and saloon, and possesses necessary registrations. The respondents, including the State of Telangana and the Commissioner of Police, had visited the petitioner's establishment. The petitioner contended that the impugned notification was illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated constitutional rights and the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli. The petitioner sought to set aside this notification. The respondents argued that the petitioner was operating without municipal and GST permissions and stated they would adhere to previous court directions regarding similar businesses.

Held

The Court disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the petitioner to strictly follow the directions issued by this Court in the order dated September 28, 2021, in W.P. No. 16281 of 2010 and batch. The Court clarified that this order does not preclude the respondents from ensuring that the petitioner is following these directions. If any deviation is observed, the respondents (police) may take appropriate steps in accordance with the law. The petitioner was also directed to cooperate with any inquiry by the respondents. Furthermore, the Court explicitly stated that it is open to the petitioner to obtain necessary permissions from the municipal authorities and GST authorities and to comply with the order passed by this Court on September 28, 2021. The ratio decidendi is that businesses of this nature must comply with existing court orders and obtain statutory permissions, and authorities can take action if such compliance is not met.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Police) in issuing the impugned notification dated 30.06.2010 is illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory, violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the notification was illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and violated fundamental rights to carry on business, as well as statutory provisions. They relied on a previous High Court order dated September 28, 2021, in W.P. No. 16281 of 2010 and batch, which provided specific directions for running massage centers. Respondents' contention: The respondents, through the Assistant Government Pleader, argued that the petitioner was operating without necessary municipal and GST permissions. They stated that they would follow the directions issued by the Court in the aforementioned previous order.