Lagishetti Narasimha Swami vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Laoishetti Narasimha Swami, operating a business named "Vamsi Confectionery" under GST registration number 36LHKPS290BD1ZO, filed a writ petition seeking to declare the continuous interference by respondents 3 and 4 (Station House Officers) in his lawful business as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. The petitioner contended that he was conducting his business lawfully, paying GST and all other taxes, and possessed a valid license. He alleged that the respondents were interfering despite a prohibition notification on tobacco issued by the respondents on May 21, 2024, which he claimed was ultra vires the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003. The petitioner sought directions to restrain the respondents from interfering with his trade and business of permissible tobacco products.

Held

The Court took note of the categorical statement made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, based on written instructions from the Sub-Inspector of Police, Makthal Police Station. These instructions stated that respondent No. 3, the Station House Officer, Makthal Police Station, was not causing any hindrance to the petitioner's business. The allegations that respondent No. 3 visited the business premises on a specific date and that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 took the petitioner into custody were denied as false and incorrect. In light of this categorical denial and assurance from the respondents that no interference was occurring, the Court found no further orders to be required in the writ petition. The petition was accordingly disposed of.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in continuously interfering with the petitioner's lawful business of selling confectionery and tobacco products, despite possessing a valid GST registration and license, is illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India and being ultra vires to the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that his business was lawful, covered by a valid license and GST payment, and that the respondents' interference was unjustified and violated his fundamental rights and statutory provisions. Respondents' Contention: The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, based on written instructions, submitted that respondent No. 3 (Station House Officer, Makthal Police Station) was not causing any hindrance to the petitioner's business. The allegations of interference and illegal detention were denied as false and incorrect. No complaint was received against the petitioner.