Allowed

Chanda Devi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC2 Sept 2021WRIC/14411/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ mandamus directing the State and local police to stop interference with her registered acupressure and spa business. The court examined the respondent's instructions confirming the shop's valid registration and license. It directed the authorities to examine the petitioner's grievance and ensure no interference if all legal approvals are valid and the business runs in

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No. 2 to examine the petitioner's grievance; if valid licenses are confirmed and business runs as per law, no interference shall be caused by anyone, including respondent No. 3.

Chanda Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14411 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Chanda Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amar Nath Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶6

The petitioner claims that she is running an acupressure centre and spa in a shop owned by her in Kanika Complex, District Shamli. The said shop is duly registered under the U.P. Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1962. She is also duly registered with the GST Department. The local police is not permitting the petitioner to run her business. Consequently, the petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing respondent no. 2 to take necessary action on her application dated 3.6.2021 in which she had complained about the harassment being done by local police. She has also prayed for a mandamus restraining respondent no. 3, Station House Officer, P.S. Kotwali, District Shamli from interfering in the running of her business.

¶7

On 15.7.2021, the following order was passed: -

¶8

"Learned Standing Counsel shall seek instructions whether the petitioner requires any license or not for running the business of the nature claimed by the petitioner. If any license is required then under which law and whether the petitioner possesses such license. The instructions shall also reveal whether there is any police complaint or investigation pending against the petitioner.

¶9

The instructions as above be obtained within two weeks.

¶10

Put up as fresh on 20.8.2021."

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel states that he is in receipt of instructions from respondent no. 3. A copy of the instructions has been placed on record for our perusal, wherein it is admitted that the shop of the petitioner is registered under U.P. Shop and Commercial Establishment Act, 1962 and her license is valid till 31.3.2023. It is further mentioned that on 4.8.2020, a FIR was lodged against the petitioner bearing Case Crime No. 363 of 2020 for alleged violation of Covid protocols.

¶12

It is clear from the instructions supplied by respondent no. 3 that the shop of the petitioner is duly registered under the U.P. Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1962. The instruction does not mention that the petitioner is required to obtain license under any other provision of law for running acupressure centre and spa. In so far as registration of FIR against the petitioner for alleged violation of Covid guidelines is concerned, it could not be a permanent impediment in running of business by the petitioner, provided Covid protocols, or any other restriction placed by law is followed.

¶13

Accordingly, we direct respondent no. 2 to examine the grievance of the petitioner as contained in her application dated 3.6.2021 and if it is found that the petitioner possesses all valid approvals and licenses and runs business in accordance with law, no interference be caused therein by anyone, including respondent no. 3.

¶14

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶15

(Deepak Verma, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 2.9.2021 Jaideep/-

Chanda Devi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chanda Devi v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pratap Singh Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Harshit Singhal Vs Collector District Hapud and 3 Ohters

Girish Chandra Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Kanti Prabha Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Moti Lal Swarnkar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ikrar Husain Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others