Shaik Rafeeq Ahmed vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Shaik Rafeeq Ahmed, proprietor of Royal Traders, filed a writ petition challenging the continuous interference by the respondents (State of Telangana and police authorities) in his lawful business activities. The petitioner stated he was conducting business with valid waybills, a license, and was paying GST and all other applicable taxes. The interference occurred despite a prohibition notification on tobacco issued by the respondent on January 7, 2022, and an interim stay granted by the Supreme Court on this notification. The petitioner argued that this interference was arbitrary, illegal, and violated principles of natural justice. The petition sought directions to prevent further harassment and interference.

Held

The Court held that the issue in the present writ petition was squarely covered by a previous order dated September 21, 2022, passed in Writ Petition No. 34806 of 2022 & batch. In that order, the Court had noted that the Supreme Court, in SLP(C) Nos. 1656 and 5399 of 2022, had granted an interim stay on the notification issued by the Government of Telangana dated January 7, 2022. Consequently, the respondents were directed not to interfere with the business activities of the petitioners until the Supreme Court's orders were in operation. The Court also noted that the Director General of Police had issued a circular to all concerned, and any action contrary to it would be viewed seriously. Therefore, the present writ petition was disposed of with similar directions, restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's business activities until the Supreme Court's orders were in effect. The Court also reiterated the seriousness with which contrary actions would be viewed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents' continuous interference with the petitioner's lawful business activities, including the sale of tobacco products, is arbitrary and illegal, violating the principles of natural justice, in light of the Supreme Court's interim stay on the prohibition notification dated January 7, 2022? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Article 226 of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents were interfering with his business despite possessing a valid license, paying GST and taxes, and operating under valid waybills. He emphasized that the Supreme Court had granted an interim stay on the prohibition notification dated January 7, 2022, and any interference by the respondents was in violation of this stay and arbitrary. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's orders in SLP(C) Nos. 1656/2022, 5399/2022, and WP(C) 1951/2022. Respondents' Contention: The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that the issue was covered by a previous order of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 34806 of 2022 & batch.