M/s.Sofitel Wellness Spa, Vs The State of Telangana

I,4/s Sofitel Wellness Spa, # Flat No.301, 302 and 303, 2nd Floor, S l,4 Central Building, Near lt4arrichettu, lt4anikonda (Jagir), Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy District. Rep. by its Proprietor Pasupuleti Suneetha, W/o.Venkat Rao N,4aradani, Aged about 31 years. Occ. Business.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶13

2 The Commrssioner of Police, Cyberabad Police Commissionerate, Hyderabad City, Telangana State.

¶14

3 The Station House Officer, Raidurgam Police Station, Raidurgam, Cyberabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewrth, the Htgh Court may be pleased to issue an Order- Direction or Writ, more particularly a Writ of I,4ANDAIVUS declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned notification No (L&O)/M4/314O1201O, dated. 30-06-2010^passed by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, volatile of Article 14, 19 (l) (g) of the Constitution of lndia, contrary to the^provisions of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli and consequently set-aside the same against the^petitioner, in the interest of^justice.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the irr cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitron, the High CoLr may be pleased to suspend the impugned notrflcation no. (L&O)/tvl4/314012A1 ) dated. 30-06-20j0 passed by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner, prrcing dispcsal of the above Writ Petrtion.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHD SUBHAN PASHA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI D. PRADEEP, AGp FOII JOME

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

INTHEHIGHcoURTFoRTHESTATEoFTELANGANAATHYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI}

¶23

1VRIT PETITION No.^{4496 0F 2026}

¶24

DATE: 13.02.2026

¶25

Between:

¶26

M/s Sofitel^{Wellness Spa, Representedby its ProprietorPasupuleti} Suneetha.

¶27

.., Petitioner

¶28

AND

¶29

The State of Telartgalta, Rep., by its PrinciPal^Secretarl', Home Dcpartment^{and 2 others}

¶30

... Respondents

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This Writ Petition is^{fiied under Article 226 of Constitution of}

¶33

India seeking the^{lollowing relief/s:-}

¶34

"...to issue an Order.^{Drrectionor Writ, morepartrcularly}

¶35

a Wnt of MANDAMUS^{declaringthe actionof the 2nd} respondent in issuing^{the impugned notifrcationNo'} {L^{and Ol/Mal 3l4Ol2OlO, dated. 3O-06-2010passed bv} the 2nd respondent as^{iltegal,arbitrary,discriminatory'} volatile of Article 14,^{19 (I) (g) of the Constitutionof India,} contrary to the^{provisionsof the Hyderabad City Police} Act, 1348 Fasli and^{consequently set-asidethe same} against the petitioner,^{in the interest ofjustice"'"}

¶36

2

¶37

Heard Mr. Mohd Subhan Pasha, learned^{)()ul-l sel for the} petitioner and Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistzr^{L'- (iovernment} Pleader for Homc appearing for^respondents.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner^stl - lrits that^the respondent police authorities are interfering^{witlr the petitioner's} business under the guise of the impugned^{notifi,> ,t.ion. Aggrieved} by such interference, the present petition has ll,:^'r-r filed^seeking appropriate direction s.

¶39

4.1. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for^l- tmc,^ap1:earing for the respondents, submits that crime u'as regis^{, red againstthe} petitioner arrd after completion of investigation, I charge sheet r.r'as filed. Further submits that during the course^rl' investigation, the iespondents/ police authorities interacted^wir I the^{pel itioner} and inspected the premises concerned. Tkrt^{allegati<>ns of} interference by the police w'ith the petitioner's bt^{riness activities} are, therefore, baseless, as the respondents^{have i r:ted} strictlyⁱⁿ accordance with the legal procedures established^{lr' lar"'.}

¶40

4.2. Additionally, he fairly submits that a^{Coorl nate Bench of} this Court, in several similar writ^petitions, ras permitted petitioners to continue their business operatic^-l s subject^to

¶41

w

¶42

3

¶43

compliance with certain specifred conditions,^{and has clarifie d} that any violation or transgression of applicable notifications^or statutorl' provisions '"r,ould entitle the^{respondents/police} authorities to take appropriate action in accordance^u,ith iaw.^He, therefore, prays that a similar order be^passed in the^present case.

¶44

I have carefully perused the materia-l avarlable on record

¶45

As rightly pointed out b1' the learned Assistant^Government Pleader lor Home, this Court, in W.P. Nos. 16281 and^{164 19 of} 20 1O and the connected batch of matters,^vide order^dated 28.09 .2022 , permitted the continuance of business^operations, subject to compliance with certain stipulated conditions.^The relevant portion of the^judgment is extracted hereunder:

¶46

"ln view ol the submissions of^{learned counsel for both sides,} these Writ Petitions are disposed of in terms of^{order dated} 04.O2.2O2t in I.A.No. I of 2O2O in^{W.P.No.244lOof2O2O,} permitting the petitioners to run the massage centers

¶47

subject to maintaining a record in the register to^{be maintained} by the massage centers containing the^dates of^{visits of the} customers, their names and verihable^{addressestogether with the} phone numbers, so as to enable the police to contact them^{on the} aspect of the request to the owner lrnanager /operator^{of the} massage centers to provide for the^{help from the opposite sex.}

¶48

Further, it shall be open to any^police officer^{not belowthe} rank of a Sub-Inspector of Police^attached to^{any police stationto} verify once in a u,hilc such^{recordsmaintained by the massage} centers and he shall also be at^{liberty to verifu as to whetherthe}

¶49

J,J l1

¶50

4

¶51

particular customer has solicited any such s1 t :ial service from the masszrge cenlre or not.

¶52

It is also open to the police to take :r propriate action dcpending upon the rcsult of any such verI(ation arcl also considering the lact that whether lhe r:ross ilassatge scrvice providcd to thc oustomers is in pro[essional n]i:r' rcr rrr not. I)olice are also t:ntitled 1o investigate into crimes, LI arl i-cported against the petitioners.

¶53

Pctitioners are also directed not to keel) le rnain door of the premises closed, during the u.orking hours. Slubject to these conditions, the petitioncrs may be permitte(.1 o czrrry on the busincss, duly taking all necessary and prop. prccautions to cnsure that no incident of immoral activity is i rricd on uncler the guise of providing u,hole body massage."

¶54

7 . Having regard to the facts ard circumstar⁽ e s of thr: case, and in the inlerest of^justice, this Court deems 1 lppropriate to permit the pctitioner to continue business operlr, tns. subject to the strict ald scrupuLous adherence to the guidt:. i l3s set forth in the prcceding paragraphs. Ordered accordingly.

¶55

It is, hor.r,ever, clarified that such continuar:e of business sha-ll be subject to compliance with all statutory rr r rrir<:ments and execLltive notifications in force. In the event of e I -r, deviation by the petitioner from the above mentioned guidelirtt: or a violation of the conditions of the notification, the res: rndents/police authorities shall be at liberty to take appropr ate action in accordance with law

\

5

I

-'w

,/ -

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.^There shall^be

¶62

no order as to costs.

¶63

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶64

closed

¶65

t

¶66

SD/.P.PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY'

6

SECTION OFFICER

To

The Principal Secretary.^{Home Department, Stateof Telangana, secretariat} Buildings, Hyderabad,^{Telangana State.}

¶72

The Commissioner^{of Police, Cyberabad Police Commissionerate,Hyderabad} City, Telangana State.

¶73

The Station House^{Officer, RaidurgamPolrceStation, Raidurgam, Cyberabad'}

¶74

One CC to SRI IVOHD^{SUBHAN PASHA,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶75

Two CCs to GP^{for Home, High Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶76

Two CD CoPies

IVP

GJP

I

HIGH COURT

DA''ED:1310212026

R H E .A
to
o
(-) I 4 Pz
.c)
t< *
F,A I
R D E R
WP.lt o.4496 of 2026o.4496 of 2026of 20262026
OF THE 'u /RlT PETITIONTHE 'u /RlT PETITION'u /RlT PETITION/RlT PETITIONPETITION
W -HOUT COSTS
I
ab
L4

¶83

WP.lt o.4496 of 2026o.4496 of 2026of 20262026

¶84

DISPOSING OF THE 'u /RlT PETITIONTHE 'u /RlT PETITION'u /RlT PETITION/RlT PETITIONPETITION W^-HOUT COSTS

M/s.Sofitel Wellness Spa, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Sofitel Wellness Spa, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Modem Arun Vs The State of Telangana

Hamaid Bin Saleh a. Hameed Vs The State of Telangana

Rachakonda Adhi Babu @ Sharath Rao Vs The State of Telangana

M/s.Htt Wellness Studio LLP Vs The State of Telangana

M/s.Ancient Spa and Wellness Vs The State of Telangana

M/s.Jeshitha Enterprises Vs The State of Telangana