Sri Rajesh Shinde S/O Shivaji Co-Shivaji 23 v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Feb 2025WP/100413/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Restriction of business/trading hours by police; ice cream parlour, juice and food items; Article 19(1)(g) right to carry on trade; mandamus against Commissioner of Police Hubballi-Dharwad and Circle Inspector (CPI) Vidyagiri Police Station; follow-on writ after W.P. No.103753/2024 ('Woop Natural'); no statutory prohibition on late-hour trading (per reproduced Coordinate Bench order); writ petition allowed; GM-RES category; Dharwad; decided at preliminary hearing.

What did the court decide?

Respondents-Police Officials directed not to restrict the petitioner's business hours — not to limit the 'Apsara Ice Cream' shop (Shop No.2, Ground Floor, Opp: Modern Hall, P.B. Road, Dharwad-04) to carrying on business of ice cream, parlour juice and food items only till 10.00 p.m. everyday. ¶Order cl.(ii)

Sri Rajesh Shinde S/O Shivaji Co-Shivaji 23 Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶Order cl.(ii)

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents (State/police authorities) have any authority to restrict the business hours of the petitioner's 'Apsara Ice Cream' parlour (to closure till 10 p.m.) and to interfere with its day-to-day business.

¶Prayer cl.1

Court's answer

Proceeding on the Coordinate Bench's answer in W.P. No.103753/2024 to the identical grievance, the Court observed that the only difference between the two cases was the ice cream brand name (Woop Natural there; Apsara here) and accordingly passed a like order.

¶Body para 3

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is allowed.

¶Order cl.(i)

Key takeaways

The respondents-Police Officials are directed not to restrict the business hours of the petitioner in respect of 'Apsara Ice Cream', Shop No.2, Ground Floor, Opp: Modern Hall, P.B. Road, Dharwad-04, i.e., not to confine his ice cream, parlour juice and food items business to 10.00 p.m. everyday.ratio¶Order cl.(ii)
In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory application(s), if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of accordingly.ratio¶Order cl.(iii)

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (Dharwad Bench), 19-02-2025, M. Nagaprasanna J. — WP No.100413/2025 (GM-RES): Rajesh Shinde, running 'Apsara Ice Cream' (ice cream, juice and food items) at Shop No.2, Ground Floor, Opp. Modern Hall, P.B. Road, Dharwad, challenged police insistence that he wind up business by 10 p.m. daily, praying for a declaration that the respondents have no authority to restrict his business hours and for restraint against interference with his day-to-day business. Noting that the identical grievance of another trader ('Woop Natural', Hubballi) had been answered by a Coordinate Bench in W.P. No.103753/2024 — whose order, reproduced in extenso, canvassed Article 19(1)(g) and found no statutory embargo on trading hours — and observing that the only difference between the two petitions was the brand name, this Bench allowed the petition and directed the respondent-police officials not to restrict the petitioner's business hours or confine operations to 10.00 p.m.; pending interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3410 WP No. 100413 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.100413 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI RAJESH SHINDE S/O. SHIVAJI CO-SHIVAJI 23, AVALAKI ONI, NEAR NO. 3, GOVT SCHOOL, MADIHAL DHARWAD - 06 AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, (APSARA ICE CREAM PARLOUR).

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI B. D. NARASAGOND, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 1.

¶14

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶15

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, HUBBALLI DHARWAD, DISTRICT: DHARWAD – 25.

¶16

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR (CPI), VIDYAGIRI, POLICE STATION, DHARWAD – 08.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRITE IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHERS APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTIONS DECLARING THAT THE RESPONDENTS HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT THE BUSINESS HOURS OF THE

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3410 WP No. 100413 of 2025

¶21

PETITIONER VIZ STYLE APSARA ICE CREAMS SHOP NO. 2 GROUND FLOOR, OPP. MODERN HALL, PB ROAD, DHARWAD- 04 ICE CREAM, PARLOUR JUICE AND FOODS ITEMS ETC AT RS 63/13 PLOT NO. 12 GRAM LAKHMANHALLI, BEARING PROPERTY NO 14014, TILL 10 PM ONLY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.(2) ISSUE A WRITE OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTIONS RESTRAINING THE RESPONDENTS FROM INTERFERING WITH DAY TODAY BUSINESS OF THE PETITIONER VIZ APSARA ICE CREAMS SHOP NO. 2 GROUND FLOOR, OPP. MODERN HALL, PB ROAD, DHARWAD-04 ICE CREAM, PARLOUR JUICE AND FOODS ITEMS ETC AT RS 63/13 PLOT NO. 12 GRAM LAKHMANHALLI, BEARING PROPERTY NO 14014, ONLY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the

¶26

following prayer:

¶27

“1. Issue a write in the nature of mandamus or any others appropriate writ, order or directions declaring that the respondents have no authority to restrict the business hours of the petitioner viz style APSARA ICE CREAMS shop no. 2 ground floor, Opp. Modern Hall, PB Road, Dharwad- 04 ice cream, Parlour juice and foods items etc at Rs 63/13 plot no. 12 Gram Lakhmanhalli, bearing property no 14014, till 10 pm only in the interest of justice and equity.

¶28

2. Issue a write or any other appropriate order or directions restraining the respondents from interfering with day today business of the petitioner viz APSARA ICE CREAMS shop no. 2 ground floor, Opp. Modern Hall, PB Road, Dharwad-04 ice cream, Parlour juice and foods Items etc at Rs 63/13 plot no. 12 Gram

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3410 WP No. 100413 of 2025

¶30

Lakhmanhalli, bearing property no 14014, only in the interest of justice and equity.

¶31

3. Grant such other relif’s as this Hon’ble court deems fit in circumstances of the case.”

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶33

the issue in the lis stands answered by the Coordinate Bench in W.P. No.103753/2024. The Coordinate Bench held as follows:

¶34

The petitioner is orally permitted to carry out amendment of the cause title.

¶35

This petition is filed feeling aggrieved by the action of respondents in calling upon the petitioner to restrict his business hours till 10.00 p.m. everyday.

¶36

The petitioner is conducting business in the name and style “Woop Natural” ice cream, juice and food items since 2024. The petitioner has obtained a licencee from Food Safety and Standards Authority of India. The petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court as the respondents are insisting the petitioner not to conduct his business beyond 10.00 p.m. The petitioner being a citizen having secured licence from the competent authority is entitled to carry out his business as enshrined under Article 19(g) of the Constitution of India.

¶37

The right to conduct business is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, which states that all citizens shall have the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. This right, however, is subject to reasonable restrictions that the state may impose in the interest of the

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3410 WP No. 100413 of 2025

¶40

general public.

¶41

In the present case, the petitioner has been conducting a legitimate business with all necessary licenses from the competent authorities. The Constitution ensures that a citizen cannot be arbitrarily deprived of their right to carry on a business, provided it is lawful and does not contravene public order, morality, or health.

¶42

The Court recognizes that while public safety is paramount, it cannot be used as a pretext to impose arbitrary restrictions on a business, especially when there are no statutory provisions supporting such restrictions. The state's responsibility to maintain law and order must be balanced against the individual's right to pursue a livelihood.

¶43

Thus, any restriction imposed must be reasonable, justified, and within the framework of the law. In this case, the respondents' insistence on early closure of the business lacks legal backing and does not constitute a reasonable restriction as envisaged under the Constitution. This Court deems it fit to protect petitioner's right to operate his business beyond the imposed hours, reaffirming the protection of fundamental rights against arbitrary administrative actions.

¶44

The learned HCGP, on query as to whether there are any restrictions in carrying the business more particularly regarding time stipulation, he would fairly submit that the law does not prohibit a businessman to carry his business beyond 10.00 p.m. However, he would point out that it is the centre place where the shop of the petition is located and it is a very sensitive place. Therefore, to avoid any untoward incident, the respondents are insisting the businessmen in surrounding areas to close their shops before 11.30 p.m.

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3410 WP No. 100413 of 2025

¶46

Having examined the records, this Court is not inclined to accede to the arguments advanced by the learned HCGP. There are no restrictions and embargo on a businessman with regard to time of business hours under any Act. The respondentofficials under the garb of public safety and law and order cannot deprive a citizen from carrying out his business during late hours. Admittedly, the petitioner is running ice cream parlor. This Court is unable to understand as to how the running of ice-cream parlor would cause any threat to public. For the foregoing reasons, the court passes the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i. The writ petition is allowed.

¶49

ii. The respondent-police officials are hereby directed not to restrict the business hours of the petitioner in respect of “Woop Natural” ice cream, juice and food items Shop No.UG-9 Marvel Signet, Shirur Park, Main Road, Vidya Nagar, Hubballi to carry out business of ice cream, juice and food items only till 10.00 p.m. everyday.

¶50

iii. In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory application, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.

¶51

The only difference between the two is the name

¶52

of the Brand - Ice Cream, before the Coordinate Bench it was

¶53

Woop Natural Ice Cream and in subject petition is Apsara Ice Cream. In that light, the following

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3410 WP No. 100413 of 2025

¶56

ORDER:

¶57

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶58

(ii) The respondents-Police Officials are hereby directed not to restrict the business hours of the petitioner in respect of “Apsara Ice Cream, Shop No.2, Ground Floor, Opp: Modern Hall, P.B. Road, Dharwad-04 to carry out business of ice cream, parlour juice and food items only till 10.00 p.m. everyday.

¶59

(iii) In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory application, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.

¶60

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶61

VNP/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

Sri Rajesh Shinde S/O Shivaji Co-Shivaji 23 v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rajesh Shinde S/O Shivaji Co-Shivaji 23 v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhugouda S/O Naganagouda Hommaraddi Vs the State of Karnataka

Naveen S/O Malatesh Satagi Vs the State of Karnataka

Kvt Industries Vs Managing Director

Khawja Bande Nawaz Vs the Managing Director

Sujatha Medar Vs State of Karnataka

Afiya Mulla Vs State of Karnataka