M/S. R.K. Traders vs. The Government Of Telangana

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by issuing a direction to the fourth respondent (Station House Officer) not to interfere with the business activities being carried out by the petitioners. The Court noted the submission from the revenue that a previously registered case against the first petitioner had been quashed by this Court on July 9, 2021, and that no crime was pending. The revenue also stated that the fourth respondent was not interfering with the business. However, the counsel for the petitioners disputed these submissions, asserting that the third respondent (Commissioner of Food Safety) was interfering. Given the dispute and the primary concern of the petitioners being interference with their business, the Court focused on ensuring smooth business operations. The Court did not expressly decide on the validity of the notification or the extent of interference by the third respondent, but rather focused on preventing further harassment by the police.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s. R.K Traders and M/s. Tawakkal Kirana and Rice Merchant, filed a writ petition challenging the continuous interference by the respondents in their lawful business activities, including the sale of tobacco products. They asserted that they operate with valid waybills, licenses, and have paid GST and all other taxes. The petitioners also noted a previous interim direction granted by the Court against a notification prohibiting tobacco, issued by the third respondent on January 6, 2021. The respondents, through the Assistant Government Pleader for Home, submitted that a case was registered against the first petitioner, but this was subsequently quashed by the High Court on July 9, 2021, and no crime is currently pending. They further stated that the fourth respondent (Station House Officer) is not interfering with the petitioners' business.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents, particularly the Station House Officer, are continuously interfering with the lawful business activities of the petitioners, including the sale of tobacco products permissible under COTPA 2003, despite the petitioners possessing valid licenses, waybills, and having paid GST and other taxes? 2. Whether the actions of the respondents are in contravention of the interim directions previously granted by this Court regarding the prohibition of tobacco? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the respondents are interfering with their lawful business activities. They emphasized that their business is conducted under valid licenses, with proper waybills, and all taxes, including GST, have been paid. They also highlighted that the Court had previously granted interim directions against a notification prohibiting tobacco, implying that the current interference is unwarranted. Revenue's Arguments: The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that a crime was registered against the first petitioner, but this was quashed by the High Court on July 9, 2021. He further contended that, as of the current date, there is no crime pending against the petitioners and that the fourth respondent is not interfering with their business activities.