Disposed

Kl Saloon and Spa v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Dec 2025WP/37188/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by a massage parlour challenging a police notification restricting its business. The court disposed of it in line with an earlier common order dated 28.09.2021 permitting massage centres subject to record-keeping and police verification, allowing authorities to act per that order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of earlier common order dated 28.09.2021; petitioner to follow conditions; respondents to act per notification dated 30.06.2025 and said order; no costs.

Kl Saloon and Spa Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32ss ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE^{ELEVENTHDAYOF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR}

¶6

WRIT PETITI^{ON NO: 37188 OF 2025}

¶7

Between:

¶8

KL SALOON^{AND SPA, Rep by Pirangolla} .Naresh'^S/o -Late^Pirangolla . rri-rrr"li ,-nged^j0 v;;r;, o-ic^-busines"s, o/o Flat No^{301'Greenhood} iJrrt."ni.] u"a,^{kk* 6on*ntion.padmasri Hills, Suncity Bandlaguda,} Bbndalguda^{Jagir, Ranga Reddy District}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of^{Telangana,ReP} by its Prl Secretary,^{HomeDepartment} Secretariat^{Buildings, Hyderabad}

¶12

The Commissioner^{of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate'Hyderabad}

¶13

The Assistant^{Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate}

¶14

The Station^{House Officer, Bandlaguda Police Station'Hyderabad}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS..

¶16

Petition under^{Article 226 of the Constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filedtherewith' the High Courtmay 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 respondentin} issuing the^{impugnednotification no (L&O)/M4/314O\2O1O ' dated30 06'2025} passed by the 2nd^{respondent as illegal, arbitrary' discriminatory' violative of} Article 14, 19^(f )^{(g) of the constitutionof lndia, contrary to the provisionsof the} HyderabadCityPoliceAct'l34BFasliandconsequentlysetasidethesame against the^{petitioner,in the interest of justice'}

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the r ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou i may be pleased to suspenfihe impugned notification No. (L&O)/N/a/31401201 ), dated 30.06.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner, pel lrng disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T.S.N.MURTHY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR HOME

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT ITYDERABAD

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KIIMAR

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.371 88 of 2O25

Date: 11.12.2o25

Between:

KL Saloon and Spa,

Rep. by Pirangolla Naresh.

¶29

...Petitioner

¶30

AND

¶31

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and three others.

¶32

...Respondents

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

Heard Iearned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Homc appearing for the respondents.

¶35

This writ petition is filed seeking following reliel-

¶36

"...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

¶37

no. (L&O)/M4l3140l2OlO,^{dated 30.06.2025} 1 assed by the 2nd respondent^as illegal,^{arbitrary, discri} ninatory, violative of Article 14, 19^{(1) (g)} of the^Const tution of India, contrary to the^{provisionsof the Hyde-} Lbad City Police Act¹ 348 Fasli and consequently^{se t} rside the same against the petitioner,^{in the interestof} .rt stice and grant such other necessary relief as this^Hor r1e Court may deem fit and proper in the^circumstar< es of the case..."

¶38

Today, when the matter is taken up for^h :^{rring, learned} counsel for the petitioner submits that^{in simila-c ircLtmst:rnces,} this Court disposed of uide order^{dated2 3.09.202Iin} W.P.No.16281 ol 2O1O and batch, the conclusive^{p< rtion of u'hich} reads as under:-

¶39

"3. In uieu of the submissions o/ leanted ct^rr:tsel for both sides, these Writ Petitions are disposed^{t1 ht terms} of order dated 04.02.2021 in I.A.No.1 oJ^{2O2O in} W.P.No.24410 of 2020, permitting the^petition< "s^{to tutl} the massage centres, subject to maintoininq^rr "ecord^irt the register to be maintained bg the^{massal ; centres} containing the dates of uisits of the custor^{t :rs, their} names and uerifiable addresses together uith ., te phone numbers, so as lo enable the police to conta,:^{them on} the aspect of the request t the oruner/ manager/ operator of the massage .^{tntrc,s to} prouide for the help from the opposite sex. I urtler,^it shall be open to ang police officer not belotu^{tl e rank oJ} a Sub-Inspector of Police ottached to^{any po,i et stotion} to ueifg once in a uhile such records maintoir^{zd bg the} massage centres and he shall also be at libert.'^{to uerify} as to whether the partianlar anstomer hzs -scl^{:ited any} such special seruice from the massage centre^{( ' not. It is} also open to the police to take appropn(^{t-e- actiort} depending upon the result of ang^{such uenfit ttionand}

¶40

I
I
<br>

¶41

also considering the fact that whether the cross massage seruice prouided to the anstomers is in professional manner or not. Police are also entttled to inuestigate into cimes, tf ang, reported against the petitioners. Petitioners are also directed not to keep the main door of the premises closed, duing the working hours. Subject to these conditions, the petitioners maA be pennitted to carry on the business, dulg taking all necessary and proper precautions to ensure that no incident of immoral actiuitA is carned on under the guise of prouiding uhole body massage. Miscellaneous petitions pending in all the Wit Petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. "

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner further prayed this Court to pass similar orders as passed in the order dated 28.09.2021 in W.P.No.1628I of 2O1O and batch in the present writ petition also.

¶43

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents did not dispute the said submission

¶44

Recording the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and in view of order dated 28.09.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.No.L628l of 2010 and batch, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to take action in terms of the notification, dated 30.06.2025, and the common order dated 28.O9.2021 passed in W.P.No.1628l of 2OlO and batch.

¶45

(

¶46

7 . It is made clear that this order would n c t preclude the respondent authorities to take appropriate acti,r r against the petitioner, if the petitioner fails to comply witl-r :he directions issued by this Court uide order dated 28.09.2021 in W.p.No.16281 of 2010 and batch.

¶47

It is needless to say that the petitioner sha1l [,llorv the order dated 28.09.202 1 passed by this Court in W.p.No. 621l ot 201O ald batch.

¶48

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. \o order as to costs.

¶49

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in th s r.r-rit petition

¶50

shall stand closed

¶51

SD/.^A. SRINIVASA^REDDY SSIS rANT REG_lqIRAtr //TRUE^COPY//

¶52

SECTION^OFFICER

¶53

To, 1 The Prl Secretary,^{Home DepartmentSecretaatBild r gs, HYderabad,State} of Telangana

¶54

The Commissioner^{of Police, Rachakonda Commissiortrate'Hyderabad}

¶55

The^{Assistant Commissioner of Police' RachakondaCo rmissionerate}

¶56

\ 7 BSR^I GJP

¶57

4.TheStationHouseOfficer,BandlagudaPoliceStation'tyderabad

¶58

One^{CCto SRIT.S.N'MURTHY' Advocate[OPUC]}

¶59

Two^{CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the { tate of Telangana at} Hyderabad [OUT]

7 Two CD^CoPies BSR

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1111212025

ORDER

----a ..^ -.
- th:;" A
)
1 'r [tr]
., ,r
,'t"11'..1 { -h
-^.... - * -'ri. '..1

¶65

WP.No.37188 of 2025

¶66

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

¶67

WITHOUT COSTS

¶68

o
<br>9L

Kl Saloon and Spa v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kl 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bsn Suryanarayana Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Shakamuri Anjali Devi Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. G. Padma Vs State of Telangana

Gangadhar Anjaiah, Vs The State of Telangana

Gangadari Anil Kumar Vs The State Of Telangana

M. Amarnath Goud Vs The State of Telangana