Pasari Ashok vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Pasari Ashok, operating as M/s Hanuman Traders, filed a writ petition challenging the continuous interference by respondent authorities in his lawful business of selling tobacco products. The petitioner stated he was conducting business with valid waybills, a license, and had paid GST and all other taxes. He contended that the respondents' actions were illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, especially in light of a prohibition notification on tobacco issued by the respondents on May 24, 2024. The petitioner sought directions to prevent further interference with his trade.

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, who placed on record written instructions from Respondent No.4, the Station House Officer, Marikal Police Station. These instructions categorically stated that no complaint had been received against the petitioner, no crime had been registered, and Respondent No.4 had not interfered with the petitioner's business. In view of this categorical statement from the respondent authority confirming no interference, the Court found no grounds to proceed further with the writ petition. The Court recorded the statement and disposed of the writ petition accordingly, with no order as to costs. The issue of whether the interference was illegal, arbitrary, or unconstitutional was rendered moot by the respondent's statement of non-interference.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondent authorities in interfering with the petitioner's lawful business of selling tobacco products, despite the petitioner possessing a valid license, paying GST and taxes, and using valid waybills, is illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India and the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that his business activities were lawful and covered by valid documentation, including GST payment and waybills. He contended that the continuous interference by the police authorities was an arbitrary and unconstitutional act, violating his fundamental rights and the provisions of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003. Revenue/State's contention: The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home placed on record written instructions from Respondent No.4 (Station House Officer, Marikal Police Station). These instructions stated that no complaint had been received against the petitioner, no crime was registered, and the petitioner had not been called or interfered with by Respondent No.4.