Chanda Devi vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's shop was duly registered under the U.P. Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1962, with a valid license until 31.3.2023. The instructions received did not indicate any requirement for additional licenses for running an acupressure centre and spa. Regarding the FIR for Covid protocol violations, the Court found it could not be a permanent impediment to the petitioner's business, provided she complied with Covid protocols or any other legal restrictions. Accordingly, the Court directed respondent no. 2 to examine the petitioner's grievance and ensure no interference in her business if she possessed all valid approvals and licenses and operated lawfully. The ratio decidendi is that a valid registration and compliance with law are sufficient to conduct business, and past FIRs for regulatory violations do not permanently bar operations if current compliance is maintained.

Facts

The petitioner, Chanda Devi, operates an acupressure centre and spa in Shamli District, registered under the U.P. Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1962, and also with the GST Department. She filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct respondent no. 2 to act on her application dated 3.6.2021, complaining of harassment by local police. She also sought a mandamus restraining respondent no. 3, the Station House Officer, from interfering with her business. The Court had previously directed the Standing Counsel to ascertain if the petitioner required any further licenses and if any police complaints were pending. Instructions received indicated the petitioner's shop registration was valid until 31.3.2023, and an FIR was lodged against her on 4.8.2020 for alleged violation of Covid protocols.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner requires any license beyond her registration under the U.P. Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1962, to run an acupressure centre and spa? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that she possessed all necessary registrations and licenses to operate her business. Revenue's contention: The Standing Counsel sought instructions regarding the necessity of licenses and any pending police investigations. 2. Whether the FIR lodged against the petitioner for alleged violation of Covid protocols constitutes a permanent impediment to her running her business? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought protection from police interference in her lawful business operations. Revenue's contention: Instructions confirmed the FIR but did not state it prevented business operations.