Mohammed Saif vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Ir. Mohammed Saif, sought permission to run a hookah center named "Flame and Flavours Hookah Centre and Café" in Hyderabad. The petitioner had submitted a representation on December 15, 2023, for this permission under the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli. The petitioner's action was based on a previous common order passed by the High Court on November 15, 2023, in WP.No.10775 of 2023 and batch. The respondents, including the State of Telangana and various police authorities, had not issued the permission. The petitioner contended that the inaction of the respondents was illegal, arbitrary, and violated principles of natural justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue was squarely covered by the aforementioned common order of the High Court.

Held

The Court held that the present writ petition was squarely covered by the common order dated November 15, 2023, passed by the High Court in WP.No.8223 of 2013 and batch. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the said common order. The reasoning was based on the submission of the petitioner's counsel, which was not disputed by the respondents' counsel. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in accordance with the previous order. The judgment did not delve into the specific conditions or reasoning from the November 15, 2023 order, as it was adopted wholesale. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the matter was resolved by applying the precedent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents' action of not issuing permission to the petitioner for running a hookah center is illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of principles of natural justice, considering the prior High Court order dated November 15, 2023, in WP.No.10775 of 2023 and batch? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the common order passed by the High Court in WP.No.8223 of 2013 and batch dated November 15, 2023. Therefore, the writ petition should be disposed of in terms of that order. The petitioner relied on the common order dated November 15, 2023, as the basis for their claim. Respondents' contention: The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for the respondents, did not dispute the fact that the issue was covered by the common order dated November 15, 2023. No specific arguments were recorded for the respondents beyond this acknowledgment.