Samiullah Khan vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Samiullah Khan, operating under the name BHARATH TRADERS, filed a writ petition challenging the continuous interference by the respondents (State of Telangana and police authorities) in his business activities. The petitioner claims to conduct his business lawfully, possessing valid waybills, a license, and having paid GST and all other taxes. The interference occurred despite a prohibition notification on tobacco issued by the respondent on January 7, 2022, and a subsequent interim stay granted by the Supreme Court on this notification. The petitioner argued that the respondents' actions were arbitrary, illegal, and violated natural justice, especially in light of the Supreme Court's stay.

Held

The Court held that the issue in this writ petition is squarely covered by a previous order dated August 21, 2022, passed in Writ Petition No. 34806 of 2022 and batch. This previous order, in light of the Supreme Court's orders in SLP(C) Nos. 1656 and 5399 of 2022, directed that the notification issued by the Government of Telangana dated January 7, 2022, shall remain stayed. Consequently, the respondents were directed not to interfere with the business activities of the petitioners as long as the Supreme Court's orders are 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 a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's business activities until the Supreme Court's orders are in effect.

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, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's interim stay on the prohibition notification dated January 7, 2022? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, concerning the authority of the respondents to interfere with a business operating under a stay order). Petitioner's contention: The respondents are illegally interfering with the petitioner's business despite a valid license, payment of GST and taxes, and crucially, an interim stay granted by the Supreme Court on the prohibition notification. This interference is arbitrary and violates natural justice. Respondents' contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondents. However, the counsel for both parties submitted that the issue is covered by a previous order of the High Court.