Police cannot obstruct lawful spa operations but may act on credible information of illegality.

The petitioner, proprietor of “Aira Family Spa” in Kalaburagi, alleged that police officials had directed the jurisdictional police to close the business and that he had been forced to shut it without notice or a closure order.

He relied on lease agreements and trade licences issued by the municipal corporation and sought protection from coercive action, as well as permission to resume operations without insisting on a trade licence.

The State denied that police had forcibly closed the premises, while submitting that police could inspect spa centres upon receiving credible information and take action in accordance with law.

The corporation stated that it had issued the petitioner a trade licence, but that the business must be lawful.

1. Whether the police may interfere with the petitioner’s spa business where its activities are lawful.

2. Whether the police may inspect the premises and take action if they receive credible information of unlawful activity.

The Court relied on Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which protects the right to carry on a lawful occupation, trade or business, and referred to the effect of interference on the proprietor’s and employees’ right to life and livelihood.

It held that police cannot obstruct lawful business activities, but may visit the premises and take action in accordance with law where credible information indicates unlawful activity.

The Court cited no specific statute or precedent; it did not determine the separate question of whether the petitioner could operate without a municipal trade licence.

The petitioner’s allegation of forced closure was disputed, and the police maintained that their visits were for verification of information about spa-centre activities.

The Court framed the protection conditionally: if the petitioner’s activities were lawful, police interference would violate the constitutional protection for carrying on business; that protection would not prevent police from inspecting the premises or acting lawfully if credible information concerned unlawful conduct.

The Court therefore did not make a finding that the spa’s activities were lawful or decide the trade-licence issue.

The order does not prevent police action if the petitioner’s activities are found to be unlawful.

No costs were ordered.