Allowed

M.Sakthivel, v. The Commissioner of Police

Madras HC5 Dec 2017WP/28974/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge disposed of a writ petition challenging police interference with a wellness spa business. The Court directed police to abide by the itinerary laid down in a previous judgment regarding massage businesses, forbidding routine raids while allowing action based on reasonable suspicion of trafficking offences.

What did the court decide?

Writ disposed of in favour of petitioner; police directed to comply with conditions in para 67 of the reported judgment including prohibition of routine raids.

M.Sakthivel, Vs The Commissioner of Police — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.12.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

WP.No.28974 of 2017

and

WMP.No.31193 of 2017

M.Sakthivel S/o.Mani ... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1.The Commissioner of Police Salem City Police Salem District.

¶11

2.The Inspector of Police Hasthampatty Police Station Salem District. ... Respondents

¶12

Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents or their men, agents from interfering with the peaceful conduct of business i.e. cross massage in the name and style of "Waves Wellness Spa" at Door No.561, Sri Ganesh Towers, Sarada College Main Road, Salem - 636 007.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Leonard Vasanth For Respondents: Mr.R.Senthilvel

¶14

Government Advocate

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents or their men, agents, from interfering with the peaceful conduct of business i.e. Cross massage in the name and style of "Waves Wellness Spa" at Door No.561, Sri Ganesh Towers, Sarada College Main Road, Salem - 636 007.

¶17

According to the petitioner, he is running the business in Salem for the past six months. Further, the petitioner has stated that the business is carried on in accordance with law. The petitioner has also stated that the local Inspector of Police and Police men are frequently coming and interfering with the business activities and thereby, causing hardship to the

¶18

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

¶19

customers coming to the premises for Traditional Ayurveda Herbal Massage. In order to prevent hardship, the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ Petition.

¶20

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.

¶21

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:-

¶22

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

¶23

(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;

¶24

(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 the police 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

¶25

(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. The Government shall file a report on or before 31.3.2015, before this Court, about the decision taken. No costs. Consequently, all connected pending MPs are closed."

¶26

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

¶27

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.

¶28

6.With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶29

s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS VII)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
mk
To
1.The Commissioner of Police
Salem City Police
Salem District.
2.The Inspector of Police
Hasthampatty Police Station
Salem District.
+1 CC to The Govt. Pleader sr 86883.

¶30

WP.No.28974 of 2017

¶31

SP(19/12/2017)

¶32

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

M.Sakthivel, v. The Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sakthivel, 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

B.Sudhakar, Vs The Revenue Divisional

P.Chakarapani, Vs The Presiding Officer

A.Jayapal, S/o.M.Anjaan, Vs The Registrar of Cooperative

M/s.Mech Tech Projects, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

M.R.Mani, Vs The District Collector

M.Chandru, S/o.Maya, Vs The General Manager