Facts
The petitioners operated spa businesses in Kalaburagi and alleged that police officers had directed the jurisdictional police to close their premises, forcing them to stop business without notice or a closure order.
Source reference: p. 2–5They relied on lease agreements and trade licences and sought protection against coercive action, as well as directions concerning the processing of their trade-licence application without requiring a police no-objection certificate.
Source reference: p. 2–5The State denied that police had forcibly closed the premises, maintaining that police had visited spa centres on receiving credible information and could act against unlawful activity in accordance with law.
Source reference: p. 4–5Issues
Whether the police may obstruct the petitioners’ spa businesses where the activities are lawful, absent action in accordance with law.
Source reference: p. 3–6Whether the police may visit the petitioners’ premises and take action upon receiving credible information of unlawful activity.
Source reference: p. 4–6Law Applied
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution protects the right to carry on a lawful occupation, trade or business; interference with lawful business may also affect the proprietors’ and employees’ right to life and livelihood.
Source reference: p. 5The Court held that police cannot obstruct lawful business, but may visit the premises and take action in accordance with law when they receive credible information of unlawful activity.
Source reference: p. 4–6No precedent or specific statutory provision was relied on in the order.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The Court considered the petitioners’ assertion that they operated lawfully and had produced lease agreements and trade licences, alongside the State’s submission that police visits were prompted by credible information and were not forcible closures.
Source reference: p. 4–5It concluded that police interference with lawful activity would infringe the petitioners’ constitutional protection and affect the livelihoods of the proprietors and employees.
Source reference: p. 5–6At the same time, the petitioners’ claimed protection could not prevent police from inspecting the premises or taking lawful action if credible information indicated unlawful activity.
Source reference: p. 5–6Holding
The petition was disposed of with directions that the petitioners carry out only lawful activities; police may visit the premises upon receiving credible information of unlawful activity and take action in accordance with law; and the respondents must not interfere with the petitioners’ lawful activities.
The order does not bar action against unlawful conduct.
Source reference: p. 6–7No costs were ordered.
Source reference: p. 6–7Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1976.1
Original Court PDF
AMBRESHvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
