S. Kranthi Kumar vs. The Government Of Telangana And 3 Others

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 4th respondent (Station House Officer, Amangal Police Station) not to interfere with the business of the petitioner except in accordance with law. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission that they are engaged in the business of selling pan masala and tobacco, holding GST registration, and are accused in three criminal cases for which petitions under Section 482 of the CrPC were filed. The Court found that the interference by the 4th respondent was causing harassment to the petitioner. The reasoning appears to be that any interference with the petitioner's business should be strictly in compliance with legal procedures and not arbitrary or excessive, especially when the underlying criminal cases are subject to ongoing legal scrutiny. The ratio decidendi is that law enforcement authorities should not unduly harass individuals engaged in lawful business activities, and their actions must be strictly governed by legal provisions. The Court did not explicitly leave any issues undecided. The operative direction was to restrain the 4th respondent from interfering with the petitioner's business except as per law.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Kranthi Kumar Agencies and Kiana, is engaged in the business of selling pan masala and tobacco products, holding a valid GST registration and license. The petitioner claims to have been continuously harassed by the respondents, particularly the Station House Officer, Amangal Police Station, despite conducting business lawfully and paying all applicable taxes. The petitioner is an accused in three criminal cases and had filed petitions under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash these crimes. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to prevent the respondents from interfering with their business activities, citing a previous interim direction granted by the High Court against a notification prohibiting tobacco issued by a respondent on January 6, 2021. The petitioner also sought to prevent interference with their lawful business activities permissible under COTPA 2003.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents' continuous interference with the petitioner's lawful business activities, despite valid licenses and GST payments, constitutes harassment and warrants intervention by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the criminal cases filed against the petitioner, for which quashing petitions under Section 482 of the CrPC are pending, justify the police's interference with the petitioner's ongoing business operations? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they are conducting their business lawfully, possessing valid licenses and paying GST and all other taxes. They contended that the respondents, specifically the Station House Officer, are continuously interfering with their business activities without proper legal justification. The petitioner highlighted that they have filed petitions under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the criminal cases against them, implying that the current interference is premature or unwarranted. They relied on the fact that their business is permissible under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA) 2003 and that a previous interim direction was granted against a tobacco prohibition notification. Respondents' Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. The order indicates that the writ petition was disposed of based on the petitioner's submissions.