Facts
The petitioner, proprietor of Glow Family Spa in Kalaburagi, alleged that police officers had, without notice or a written closure order, forced her to shut the business.
Source reference: p. 3She relied on lease agreements and trade licences to assert that the spa was lawfully operating
Source reference: p. 3; p. 5The State disputed the allegation that police had forcibly closed the premises, but submitted that police could inspect spa centres upon receiving credible information about unlawful activity and take action in accordance with law
Source reference: p. 4The petitioner sought protection against interference with the spa’s lawful operations.
Source reference: no citationIssues
Whether the police could obstruct or close the petitioner’s spa without lawful authority or due process
Source reference: pp. 3–5Whether the petitioner’s lawful business was entitled to protection from police interference, while remaining subject to lawful police action upon credible information of unlawful activity
Source reference: pp. 4–6Law Applied
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution protects the right to carry on a lawful occupation, trade or business; the Court also referred to the effect of interference on the proprietor’s and employees’ right to life and livelihood
Source reference: p. 5Police may visit or inspect the premises and take action in accordance with law when they receive credible information of unlawful activity; the order does not prevent action against activities found to be unlawful or contrary to law
Source reference: pp. 4, 6–7No precedent was cited.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The Court considered the petitioner’s assertion that she operated the spa lawfully, supported by lease agreements and trade licences, alongside the police’s submission that it had visited spa centres to verify credible information
Source reference: pp. 4–5It reasoned that police obstruction of lawful business would infringe Article 19(1)(g) and affect the livelihood of the proprietor and employees.
Source reference: p. 5Accordingly, it protected lawful operations while preserving the police’s authority to visit the premises on credible information and act in accordance with law
Source reference: pp. 6–7Holding
The Court disposed of the petition by directing that the petitioner may carry out lawful activities and that the respondents shall not interfere with those activities
The jurisdictional police may visit the premises periodically upon receiving credible information of unlawful activity and may take action in accordance with law if unlawful conduct is found
Source reference: pp. 6–7No order was made as to costs.
Source reference: p. 7Original Court PDF
ASHA DEVIvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
