Allowed

M/s. F5- The Revitalising Spa v. The Commissioner of Police

Madras HC7 Sept 2017WP/24107/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ of mandamus to restrain police interference with their beauty salon business. Court allowed the petition, directing police to adhere to prior judgments prohibiting routine raids and specifying steps to follow only under the Immoral Traffic Act.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's Writ Petition allowed and disposed of; respondents directed to comply with prior orders restraining routine interference.

M/s. F5- The Revitalising Spa Vs The Commissioner of… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07.09.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY

¶5

W.P.No.24107 of 2017 and

¶6

W.M.P.No.25453 of 2017

¶7

M/s F5- THE REVITALISING SPA
AND BEAUTY SALOON
rep. By its Proprietor
Mr.S.Karthikeyan
No.18A/52A, New Tank Street,
Nungambakkam
Chennai 600 034 ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Commissioner of Police,
The Greater Chennai,
Vepery, Chennai 600 007.
2. The Inspector of Police,
F3, Nungambakkam Police Station,
Village Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai 34. ... Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents, their men, agents, from interfering with the peaceful conduct of business of the petitioner carried on in the name and style of “ M/s F5 – The Revitalising Spa and Beauty Saloon, at No.18A/52A, New Tank Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai 34.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Dharmarajan For Respondents : Mr.S.V.Doraisolaimalai Addl. Government Pleader

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents, their men, agents, from interfering with the peaceful conduct of his business carried on in the name and style of “ M/s F5 – The Revitalising Spa and Beauty Saloon, at No.18A/52A, New Tank Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai 34.

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

2.According to the petitioner, the firm was established for various objects and one among them is to run Beauty Saloon, Spa and Body Massage and after completing the interior work, they applied for license and the Corporation of Chennai has granted license on 28.06.2017 for running a Hair Cutting Saloon and they are using the same premises for body message and spa, which are part and parcel of Hair Cutting Saloon, since there is no provision to obtain license for running body massage and spa. However, the local Inspector of Police and Police men are frequently coming and interfering with the conduct of the business and making endeavour to shut down the business. In order to prevent hardship, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition.

¶14

3.This Court, in similar circumstances, following the ratio laid down by this court in the judgment report in 2015(1) MLJ 308 [Masti Health and Beauty Private limited & Others V. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City], disposed of the Writ Petition in W.P.No.9380 of 2016, by order dated 14.03.2016, by directing the respondents-police to comply with the directions/conditions imposed in paragraph 67 of the order in the judgment reported in 2015(1) MLJ 308 (cited supra) and further made it clear that the petitioner therein under the guise of carrying on business activity shall not indulge in any unlawful or illegal activities detrimental to law and order or public order.

¶15

4.Since the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is identical to the issue involved in W.P.No.9380 of 2016, it is relevant to extract para 67 of the order passed in 2015(1) MLJ 308 (cited supra), which reads as follows:-

¶16

“67.In the light of the above, all the writ petitions are disposed of to the following effect :

¶17

(i) The respondents shall not, as a matter of routine and without any basis, conduct any raids and interfere with the business carried on by the petitioners;

¶18

(ii) In specific cases where the police have reasonable grounds to believe that an offence punishable under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act has been or is being committed, it is open to thepolice to take action, after scrupulously following all the steps indicated in Section 15 of the said Act. The steps to be followed are narrated by me in paragraph 28 above; and

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

(iii) Based upon the laws enacted in various States of the United States of America and Singapore, which I have dealt with in paragraphs 39 to 54, the respondents may take appropriate steps for bringing in either a new legislation or a subordinate legislation in terms of the provisions of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act or the Chennai City Police Act, so that public order, decency and morality, which can form the basis for a regulatory law under Article 19(2) of The Constitution, are taken care of. .........”.

¶21

5.In the light of the said order, the Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the respondents-police to comply with the directions imposed in para 67 of the order as extracted above. It is also made clear that the petitioner under the guise of carrying on business activity shall not indulge in any unlawful or illegal activities detrimental to law and order or public order.

¶22

6.With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed
of. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS II)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rg
To
1.The Commissioner of Police,
The Greater Chennai,
Vepery, Chennai 600 007.
2. The Inspector of Police,
F3, Nungambakkam Police Station,
Village Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai 34.
+1 cc to the Government Pleader sr 65413
+1 cc to M/s.S.Anusuya Advocate sr 64727
W.P.No.24107 of 2017 and
W.M.P.No.25453 of 2017
sai(co)
aa26/09/2017

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/s. F5- The Revitalising Spa v. The Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. F5- The Revitalising Spa v. The Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.P.Motors, Vs The Registering Authority-Cum-

Mr.K.Subba Reddy, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

B.Sivakumar, Vs The Branch Manager

G.Jayaraman Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

N.K.Kalidasan Vs the Member Secretary

V.Jayakumar Vs the Tamilnadu Electricity