P. Rajesh Kumar vs. The State Of Telangana And 7 Others

Facts

The petitioner, P. Rajesh Kumar, filed a writ petition seeking to prevent respondents from interfering with his business activities. He contended that he was conducting his business lawfully, possessing valid bills, a license, and paying GST. The interference occurred despite a prohibition notification on tobacco issued by a respondent on January 7, 2022. Crucially, the Supreme Court had granted an interim stay on this notification. The petitioner argued that the respondents' actions were illegal, arbitrary, and violated principles of natural justice, especially in light of the Supreme Court's stay orders, which were also being disregarded despite prior stays granted by the High Court. The petition sought directions for the respondents to cease interference with his business.

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 and batch. In that prior order, the Court had directed that in light of the orders passed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) Nos. 1656 and 5399 of 2022, the notification issued by the Government of Telangana vide Notification No. 501/FSS-1/2022 dated January 7, 2022, shall remain stayed. 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 initiated by officers contrary to this would be viewed seriously. The Court disposed of the present writ petition with these directions, stating there would be no order as to costs.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents' continuous interference with the petitioner's business activities is illegal and arbitrary, violating the principles of natural justice, in light of the Supreme Court's interim stay on the prohibition notification dated January 7, 2022? (Question of law and fact, concerning the application of Supreme Court orders and principles of natural justice). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that his business was lawful, supported by valid bills, a license, and GST payments. He contended that the respondents' interference was illegal and arbitrary, directly contravening the interim stay granted by the Supreme Court on the prohibition notification. He asserted that the respondents were violating the Supreme Court's orders, which had also superseded earlier stays granted by the High Court. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to cease such interference. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the Court's decision was based on a prior order in a batch of writ petitions.