Akuthota Narasimha vs. The Government Of Telangana

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's business activities except in accordance with law. The Court did not delve into the merits of the petitioner's claims regarding the legality of his business or the justification for the respondents' actions. The reasoning appears to be based on the submission that the petitioner is engaged in a business for which he has obtained registration under GST and is paying taxes. The Court's direction implies that any interference by the respondents must be legally permissible and not arbitrary harassment. No specific issue was expressly left undecided, but the Court did not make a definitive finding on the lawfulness of the business or the validity of the respondents' actions beyond the general directive to act in accordance with law.

Facts

The petitioner, Akuthota Narasimha, operates a business selling pan masala and tobacco products under the name M/s. Om Sai Traders. He possesses a valid license and pays GST and other taxes. The petitioner claims the respondents, including the Government of Telangana and the Commissioner of Food Safety, have been continuously interfering with his lawful business activities. He asserts that a previous notification prohibiting tobacco was challenged, and interim directions were granted by this Court in W.P.No.21334 of 2021. The petitioner also states he is an accused in three criminal cases (Cr.Nos. 150 of 2021 and 179 of 2021) filed by the petitioner under Section 182 of IPC, and a petition to quash proceedings in another case is pending. Despite these circumstances, the respondents are allegedly harassing him by interfering with his business.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents' continuous interference with the petitioner's lawful business of selling tobacco products, despite possessing a valid license and paying GST, is justified, particularly in light of previous interim directions granted by this Court against a tobacco prohibition notification? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that his business is lawful, supported by a valid license and tax payments, including GST. He argues that the respondents' actions constitute harassment and interference with his smooth and lawful business operations. He relies on the fact that this Court had previously granted interim directions against a tobacco prohibition notification, implying a favorable stance on the legality of such businesses under certain conditions. He also highlights that he is facing criminal proceedings and has filed petitions to quash them, suggesting that the current interference is unwarranted. Respondents' arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. The General Power for Home Department appeared.