Disposed

M/s. Ravon Slimming and Spa, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Nov 2025WP/22949/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A spa operator alleged police interference with its business after registration of a case under IPC and the Immoral Traffic Act. The Sessions Case ended in acquittal. Following the Government Pleader's submission and an earlier batch order, the court permitted the business to continue subject to stipulated guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to continue the spa business subject to the stipulated conditions and statutory compliance; no costs.

M/s. Ravon Slimming and Spa, Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

13217 |

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

Prlflilrlf

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

lm{tr PETITION NO:22949 OF 2018

¶7

Between

¶8

Mr. Kalavala Spa (Revon)

¶9

'1. The State its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Telangana

¶10

The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda,^{Rangareddy District.}

¶11

The Deputy Commissioner of Police,^{Malkajgiri, Medchal Distrit.}

¶12

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Malkajgiri,^{MedchalDistrit.}

¶13

The lnspector of Police, Nacharam^{Police Station, Nacharam, Hyderabad.}

¶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 a writ, order or direction more^particularly one^{in the nature of} writ of Mandamus declaring the action^{of the respondentsin not allowingthe} petitioner to carry on his "M/s. RAVON SLIMMING AND SPA"^{business in the} premises bearing H.No.4-1-9'l126, Plot No.26, 1st Floor, V.S.^{Plaza' Nacharam} Main Road, Malkajgiri/Medchal,^pursuant to^{registrationof suo moto case in Cr.} No.184/2018 U/s. 370(A) IPC and Sections^{3, 4 and 5 of Preventionof lmmoral} Traffic Act, 1956 by respondent No.5^{against the petitioner herein andthree} others (A2 to A4) on the allegation^{that prostitution business was beingcarried} on in the spa centre, as arbitrary,^{illegal,capricious, and consequently direct the}

¶16

respondents to permit the petitioner to carry on the Spa (Revon) Centre business in the above saicl premises.

¶17

I OF 2018

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.5 not to interfere with "M/s.RAVON SLIMMING AND SPA' business carried on by the petitioner in the premises bearing H.No.4-191126, Plot llo.26, 1st Floor, V.S. Plaza, Nacharam Main Road, Malkajgiri/Medchal, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SUREPALLI MADHAVA RAO (rorpnEsenr, Counsel for the Respondents: SRI M.SRINIVAS, AGP FOR HOME

¶20

The Court made, the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶24

lndia seeking the following relief:

¶25

"-..fo rbsue a writ, order or direction more particutady one in the nature of wit of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not allowing the ptitioner to carry on his "M/s. RAVON SLIMMING AND sPA" busi,hess in the premrses beaing H.No. 4-1-91/26, Plot No. 20, lil Floor, V.S. plaza, Nacharam Main Road, Malkajgiri/bledchal, purcuant to rcgistration of suo motu case in cr. No. 184/2018, under sec. 3To(A) lpc and secfions 3, 4 and 5 of Prevention of lmmoral rraffic Act, lgs6 by respondent No- 5 against the petitioner hercin and three others (A2 to A4) on the allegation that prostitution business was being caried on in the spa centre, as arbitrary, illegal, capricious and consequentty direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to carry on the spa (Revon) centrc busrness in the above said premises and fo pass such other order or ordets..."

¶26

2. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner

¶27

3.1. Mr. M. Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for the respondents, submits that Crime No. 1g4 of 201g was registered for offences under the Prevention of lmrnoral Traffic Act, 1956. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the case was taken cognizance of as S.C. No. 27g of 2oz2 on the file of the learned I Additional sessions Judge, Kukatpalty, Medchal-Malkajgiri

¶28

¶29

lY/.P. No. ^rr&/22949 oJ 2018

¶30

District. He further submits that the said Sessions Case culminated in acquittal on 17 .05.2024.

¶31

3.2. Further submits that during the course of investigation, the respondents/police authorities interacted with the^petitioner and inspected the premises concerned. The allegations of interference by the^police with the^petitioner's business activities are, therefore, baseless, as the respondents have acted strictly in accordance with the legal^procedures established by law.

¶32

3.3. Additionally, he fairly submits that a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in several similar writ^petitions, has^{permitted petitioners} to continue their business operations subject to compliance with certain^specified conditions, and has clarified that any violation or transgression^of applicable rrotifications or statutory^provisions would entitle^the respondents/police authorities to take appropriate action in^accordance with law. Her, therefore,^prays that a similar order be^{passedin the} present case.

¶33

I have carefully^perused the material available on record.

¶34

As rightly contended by the learned Assistant Government^Pleader for Home, this Court, in W.P. Nos. 16281 and 16419 ot 2010 and the connected batch of matters, vide order dated 28.09.2022, permifted the

¶35

¶36

IVr&/ IY.P. No. 22949 of 2018

¶37

i ', ,.:. ,

¶38

continuance of business operations,^{subject to compliancewith certain} stipulated conditions. The^{relevant portion of the judgmentis extracted}

¶39

hereunder:

¶40

"tn view of the submissions of learned counsel for both^{sides, these Writ} Petitions are disposed of in terms of^{order dated 04.02.2021 in l.A.No.1} ot 2O2O in W.P.No.24410 of^{ZOZf., permitting the petitioners to run the} massage @ntres,

¶41

subject to maintaining a record^{in the registerto be maintained by} the massage centres containing the^{dates of visits of the customers,their} names and verifiable addresses together^{with the phone numbers,so as} to enabte the^police 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.

¶42

Further, it shall be open to any^{police officer not belowthe rankof} a Sub-lnspector of Police attached^{to any polie station to verify oncein} a while such records maintained by the^{massage centresand he shall} also be at liberty to veriff as to wtrether^{the particular customer has} solicited any such special service^{from the massagecentre or not.}

¶43

It is also open to the^polioe to take appropriate^{action depending} upon the result of any such verification^{and also considering the fact that} whether the cross massage service^{provided to the cus{omers is in} professional manner or not. Police are also entitled to^{investigateinto} crimes, if any, reported against the^petitioners.

¶44

Petitioners are also directed not to^{keep the main door of the} premises closed, during the working hburs. Subject^{to these conditions,} the petitioners may be^permitted to carry^{on the business, duly takingall} necessary and proper^{precar.rtions} to ensure^{that no incident of immoral} activity is carried on under the^{guise of providingwhole body massage."}

¶45

Having regard to the facts and circumstances^{of the case,and in} the interest of^justice, this Court deems^{'it appropriateto permit the} petitioner to continue business operations, subject to the strict^and

¶46

¶47

MI&/ W.P. No. 22949 of 2018

¶48

scrupulous adherence to the guidelines set forth in the preceding paragraphs. Ordered accordingly.

¶49

lt is, however, clarified that such crntinuance of business shall be subject to compliance with all statutory requirements and executive notifications in force. ln the event of any deviation by the petitioner from the above mentioned guidelines or a violation of the conditions of the notification, t'he respondents/police authorities shall be at liberty to take

¶50

appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶51