Amol Ramesh Pampatwar vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Amol Ramesh Pampatwar, proprietor of Sharvari Kirana & Ansh General Stores, filed a writ petition seeking to declare the actions of the respondent authorities in interfering with his lawful business activities as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. The petitioner stated that he was conducting his business lawfully with valid waybills, a valid license, and had paid all applicable GST and other taxes. The business is located in Mogadagad Village, Koutala Mandal, Komarambheem Asifabad District. The petitioner sought directions to the respondents to refrain from interfering with his trade and business, particularly the sale of tobacco products permissible under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COTPA 2003).

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition based on the statement made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. The AGP, relying on written instructions dated 20.08.2024, informed the Court that upon filing of the writ petition, respondent No. 3 (Circle Inspector of Police, Task Force) verified the station records. It was revealed that as of that date, no FIR or complaint was registered or pending against the petitioner or concerning his business. Consequently, the allegation of interference by the respondent authorities was deemed false and untrue. The Court recorded this submission and disposed of the writ petition accordingly. No costs were awarded. The ratio decidendi is that if the authorities confirm no adverse action or interference exists, the writ petition based on such allegations will be disposed of based on that confirmation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the actions of the respondent authorities in interfering with the petitioner's lawful business activities, conducted with valid licenses, waybills, and payment of GST and other taxes, are illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India and being ultra vires to COTPA 2003? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the respondents' continuous interference with his business was unlawful, as he was operating within the bounds of the law, possessing all necessary documentation and having complied with tax obligations. He contended that such interference infringed upon his fundamental rights to carry on trade and business. Respondents' Arguments: The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, based on written instructions, submitted that no FIR or complaint was registered or pending against the petitioner or in connection with his business. Therefore, the allegation of interference by the respondent authorities was stated to be false and untrue.