Disposed

Namaste Saloon And Spa v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC24 Jan 2024WP/1697/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A spa challenged a 2010 police notification restricting its massage centre business as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). Counsel stated the issue was covered by the common order in W.P.No.16281 of 2010 and Batch; the writ petition was disposed of in terms of that common order permitting the business subject to record-keeping and police verification conditions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of common order dated 28.09.2021 in W.P.No.16281 of 2010 and Batch, permitting operation of the massage centre subject to stated conditions; no costs.

Namaste Saloon And Spa Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO 1697 0F 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Namaste Saloon And Spa, Rep. by its Proprietrix B. Nilama, Wo. B. Kuresh, Hindu, Aged about 37 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Flat No - 20'1, Bhavana Enclave, 6th Phase, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State_ of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Home Department, T.S.Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶12

2 The Comrnissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Hyderabad, Telangana State. 3. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶13

The Station House Officer, KPHB Police Station, KPHB, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned notification No.(L and O)1M413140t2010, dated. 30.06.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Article 14, 19(1) (g) of the constitution of lndia, contrary to the provisions of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli and consequenfly set-aside the same against the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

¶16

IANo:10F 2024

¶17

petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, ,n" ,,nn Court may be pteased to suspend the impugned notification No.(L & o)tM4r314012010, dated. 30.06.20 j0 passed by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner, pending disposar of the above Writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI SANDEEP RANGU Counsel for the Respondents: AGp FOR HOME

¶19

The Court made the foltowing: ORDER

¶20

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.1697 0F 2024

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶25

of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

¶26

¶27

¶28

'...to issu€ an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in issuing tJ-e impugrred notification No. (I-&O) / M4 / 3 14O / 20 tO, dated 30.06.20 1O passed by respondent No.2, as arbitrarSr, illegal, discriminatory, violative of Articles t4 and 19 (1) {g) of the Constitution of India and contrar5r to t1-e provisions of tJre Hyderabad City Police Act, 134g Fasli and consequenfly to set-aside ttre same against t].e petitioner..."

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistalt Government pleader for Home appearing for the respondents and perused the record.

¶30

When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is represented by learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the common order passed by this Court in W.p.No.162g1 of 2O1O arrd Batch, dated 28.09.2021. The same is not disputed by learned

¶31

¶32

Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing^{for the} respondents.

¶33

Following the said common order and the reasons stated therein, this Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms of the said common order, dated 28.09.2021,^passedin W.P.No.16281 of 2O 1O and Batch. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

¶35

Petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

SD/. B.SARASWATHI //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT $EPSTRAR / SECTI O:ft OFFICER

¶37

To, l.ThePrincipalsecretaryHomeDepartment,T.S.Secretariat,Hyderabad, Telangana State,^{State of Telangana'}

¶38

The Commissioner^{of Police, Hyderabad City, Hyderabad' Telangana State'} 3.TheCommissionerofPolice,CyberabadCommissionerate,Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Telangana^State.

¶39

The Station^{HouseOfficer, KPHB Police Station' KPHB'Hyderabad'} Telangana State.

¶40

One CC to SRI^{SANDEEP RANGU, Advocate [OPUC]}

¶41

6.TwoCCstoGPFoRHoME,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad [OUT]

¶42

7.^.Two CD CoPies

¶43

(Along with the copy^{of order dated28.09'2021 , in W'P'No'1628 1of2010)}

BSR

HIGH^COURT

DATED:^2410112024

ORDER

WP.No.1697^{of 2024}

1 HE STA Ic'
o5 zi
,J 0 1 FEB 202{ Ctt
*
2

¶52

DISPOSING^OF THE WRIT PETITION,

WITHOUT COSTS

\o
rn
7\ \r

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEI(.LAI(SIIMAN}

¶57

WRIT PETITIO Nos.162 1 aud 1641 9^{of 2oLo} 7 1 31 a76 rd2272 4 3O317 of 2015i 15413 1 435 292⁹ 923L 3()a48³³¹²¹ 3A409 40734 40787 dad 44939^{of 20l6i} 646 6s8 2955^{3407110512006925901} 2A929 4to12 41324 41355^{and4142 of 2t7} 7 97 1 7 7 1a 627 1 ar|l 23 2467 29 t2 II 2 347 a7 of2 1 73 o ,76 I 7S 2 1 2of 1

¶58

COMM o^{N ORDER:}

¶59

Since the^{issue involvedin all these Writ Petitionsis one} and the same,^{they are being disposed of by this common} order.

¶60

It is submitted^{by the learnid counsel for the petitioners} in all the^{WritPetitions and learned GovernmentPleaderfor} Home that^{the entire batchof these WritPetitionscarl be} disposed of in^{terms of interim order dated 04 'O2'2o21 in} I.A.No.¹ of^{2O2O in W.P-No'2441Oof 2O2O '}

¶61

ln view of^{the submissions of leamedcounselfor both} sides, these^{Writ Petitions are disposedof in terms of order} dated O4.O2.2O21^{in I'A'No'1 of 2O2O in W'P'No'2441oof} 2020,^{permi-tting the petitioners to run the massagecentres'} subject to^{maintainingarecordinthe register to be} maintained^{by the massagecentres containingthe dates of} visits of the^{customers,theirnames and verifiableaddresses} together^{with the phonenumbers,so as to enable the police}

¶62

¶63

¶64

to contact them on the aspect of the request to the owner/ manager/ operator of the massage centres to provide for the help from the opposite sex. Further, it shall be open to any police olTicer not below the rank of a Sub-lnspector of Police attached to any police station to veriS once in a while such records maintained by the massage centres and he shall also be at liberty to veriff as to whether the particular customer has solicited any such special service from the massage centre or not- It is also open to the police to take appropriate action depending upon the result of any such verifrcation and also considering the fact that whether the cross massage service provided to the customers is in professional manner or not. police are also entitled to investigate into crimes, if ally, reported against the petitioners. Petitioners are also directed not to keep the main door of the premises closed, during the working hours. Subject to these conditions, the petitioners may be permitted to carry on the business, duly taking ail necessar5r and proper precautions to ensure that no incident of immoral activity is carried on under the guise of providing whole body massage. Miscellaneous petitions pending in all the Writ petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶65

Date:28.O9.2021 TJMR

¶66

K. LAI(SHMAN, J

Namaste Saloon And Spa v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Namaste Saloon And Spa v. The State of Telangana

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

Meghvath Alivelu Mangamma Vs The State of Telangana

Subhash Chandra Sharma Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Upadey Laxman, Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Amireddy Thirumala Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Vaddepally Sudarshan Vs The State of Telangana

M. Jayasimha Reddy Vs The State of Telangana