Authorities must prevent unlawful obstruction, while business remains subject to applicable regulatory orders.

The petitioner, which operates Raj Medical Store at Main Market, Banbasa, sought relief under Article 226, alleging that a protest outside the store obstructed its operations and seeking protection from unlawful interference and arbitrary action by authorities

The State informed the Court that no protest was then taking place, the premises had been reopened, and the competent Drug Control Authority had prohibited the purchase and sale of medicines after identifying storage-related irregularities

The petitioner had not specifically challenged that prohibition in this petition

Whether any order was required to address the alleged protest and obstruction at the petitioner’s medical store, given that no protest was then taking place

Whether the Court should examine the legality of the prohibition on the purchase and sale of medicines when that action had not been specifically challenged in the petition

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution, but the Court confined its consideration to the reliefs and matters properly raised in the proceedings

The Court did not determine the legality of the Drug Control Authority’s action because that action had not been specifically challenged; its observations therefore expressed no view on the merits of the prohibition

It directed that local administration and police act in accordance with law to maintain peace and prevent unlawful obstruction, while making clear that the petitioner’s business remained subject to applicable statutory requirements, licences, permissions, and orders of competent authorities

No precedent or specific statutory provision was applied to decide the disputed issues.

The Court considered the State’s instructions that no protest was taking place and that the store premises were open. It therefore held that the grievance concerning the protest did not survive for consideration at that time

The separate restriction on medicine sales arose from action by the competent authority and was not specifically challenged; accordingly, the Court declined to adjudicate its legality or merits

It preserved the petitioner’s ability to access and conduct business at the premises, subject to law and competent authorities’ orders

It directed the local administration and police to maintain peace and ensure that no person unlawfully obstructed the petitioner’s access to the store, while clarifying that any business activity must comply with applicable requirements and orders

Finding no further order necessary, the Court disposed of the writ petition and any pending applications