Disposed

Mr Sanjib K R Deroi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2024WP/2311/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a declaration and mandatory direction against police interference in the petitioner's spa business. The court accepted submissions that police had inspected the premises twice without finding illegality, noting the respondent petition deserves to succeed.

What did the court decide?

Respondents – police restrained from disturbing peaceful business of petitioner unless illegality warrants; Writ Petition disposed.

Mr Sanjib K R Deroi Vs the State of Karnataka — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:10974 WP No. 2311 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 2311 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. SANJIB K.R.DEROI S/O SARAT KUMAR DEORI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS PROPRIETOR OF SEAN THAI SPA OFFICE AT: NO.805/A, 3^RD FLOOR 7^TH CROSS, BTM LAYOUT, 2^ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 076.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAVINDRA PRASAD B., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001. BENGALURU CITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, NO.73, 16^TH MAIN ROAD LAKSHMI LAYOUT, MCHS COLONY

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:10974 WP No. 2311 of 2024

¶17

STAGE 2, BTM LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 076.

¶18

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH COTTONPETE MAIN ROAD SULTANPETE, BAKSHI GARDEN CHIKPET, BENGALURU – 560 053.

¶19

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION NO.73, 16^TH MAIN ROAD LAKSHMI LAYOUT, MCHS COLONY STAGE 2 , BTM LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 076.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. K.P.YOGANNA, AGA)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) TO DECLARE THAT THE ACTION OF THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN IN INTERFERING IN THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN AS ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ARBITRARY AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the

¶26

following prayer:

¶27

“i. To declare that the action of the Respondents herein in interfering in the business activities of the Petitioner herein as illegal, unconstitutional and arbitrary.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:10974 WP No. 2311 of 2024

¶30

ii. To, issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents not to interfere with the business activities Petitioner’s Shop “Sean Thai Spa” situated at no.805/A, PID No.85-94805/A, 3^rd Floor, 7^th Cross, BTM Layout, 2^nd Stage, Bangalore – 560076.

¶31

iii. To pass such other order/s or relief/s and issue such other Writ that this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the present Writ Petition, in the interest of Justice and Equity.”

¶32

2. This Court on 21.02.2024, had passed the

¶33

following order:

¶34

“The petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to direct the respondents - police not to interfere in the business activities of the petitioner - Spa.

¶35

The learned High Court Government Pleader on instructions would submit that three Spas' were searched on a particular day, one of which is the petitioner - Spa and though they did not find anything unlawful in the said premises, it is therefore, no case is registered against them.

¶36

The learned High Court Government Pleader would seek a week's time to seek further instructions and make submissions.

¶37

In the light of the aforesaid submission, the respondents - police are restrained from interfering with the activities of the petitioner - Spa, except in accordance with law till the next date of hearing.

¶38

List this matter on 18.03.2024, in the fresh matters

¶39

list.”

¶40

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:10974 WP No. 2311 of 2024

¶41

The Additional Government Advocate on instructions would submit that in the light of the afore-quoted order of this Court, the jurisdictional police had inspected the petitioner - Spa not once but twice and did not find any illegal or unlawful activities in the Spa.

¶42

In the light of the said submission, the petition deserves to succeed and the respondents - police shall not disturb the peaceful business of the petitioner, unless illegality warrants.

¶43

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed.

¶44

Ordered accordingly.

¶45

NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33 CT:SS

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

Mr Sanjib K R Deroi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Sanjib K R Deroi v. the State of Karnataka

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

Dr K N Venkatesh Vs M Mallanna

K v Srinivas Vs Idbi Bank Ltd.

Naseem Unnisa Vs State of Karnataka

Fathima Vs State of Karnataka

Fort City Recreation Club Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Sadashiva Acharya Vs the State of Karnataka