Shaik Ashraf Hussain vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Shaik Ashraf Hussain, operating 'M/s. A.H. Chaliya Store' in Nizamabad, Telangana, filed a writ petition challenging the alleged continuous interference by respondent authorities (Station House Officers of Task Force and Nizamabad I Town Police Station) in his lawful business activities. The petitioner claims to be conducting business legally, possessing a valid license, paying GST and all taxes, and operating under valid waybills. He asserts that his business does not involve tobacco or banned products, and there is no contravention of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (COTP Act). The respondents, through the Assistant Government Pleader for Home, stated that they have not interfered with the petitioner's business and no complaint has been registered against him.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (Station House Officer, Task Force, Nizamabad, and Station House Officer, Nizamabad I Town Police Station) not to interfere in the business of the petitioner without following due process of law. The Court noted the submissions from both sides. The petitioner claimed interference despite lawful business operations, while the respondents denied any interference and stated that no complaint was registered. Given these submissions, the Court's direction aims to ensure that any future action by the authorities must be in accordance with the law and proper procedure. No costs were ordered. The issue of whether the interference was indeed arbitrary or unconstitutional was not explicitly decided, but the order implicitly seeks to prevent such actions by mandating due process.

Key Issues

1. Whether the actions of the respondent authorities in interfering with the petitioner's business activities are arbitrary, unconstitutional, and ultra vires to the COTP Act, 2003, in violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the respondent authorities are interfering with his lawful business operations without due process. He argued that his business is conducted legally, with all necessary licenses and tax compliance, and does not involve any prohibited tobacco products, thus not violating the COTP Act. The interference is therefore unjustified and violates his fundamental rights. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, through the Assistant Government Pleader, submitted written instructions stating that they have not interfered with the petitioner's business in any manner. They further submitted that no complaint has been registered against the petitioner, implying no grounds for interference.