Police may inspect spas on credible information but cannot obstruct lawful business.

The petitioner, who claimed to operate “Aira Family Spa” in Kalaburagi, alleged that police had compelled him to close the business without notice or a closure order.

He relied on lease agreements and municipal trade licences and sought protection from coercive action, as well as permission to reopen without being required to obtain a trade licence under the proviso to Section 353 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act.

The police denied forcefully closing the premises, but asserted their authority and duty to inspect spa centres and act on credible information of unlawful activity.

The Corporation stated that it had issued the petitioner a trade licence, while maintaining that the business must be lawful.

Whether the police may obstruct or close the petitioner’s spa business without lawful basis, where the petitioner claims to be carrying on lawful activities.

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

Whether the petitioner was entitled to an order permitting operation without a municipal trade licence under the proviso to Section 353 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act.

Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution protects the right to carry on a lawful occupation or business; interference with lawful business may also affect the proprietor’s and employees’ life and livelihood.

The police may visit the premises and take action in accordance with law when they receive credible information of unlawful activity, but must not interfere with lawful business operations.

The petition referred to the proviso to Section 353 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act in seeking relief, but the Court did not decide its application; no precedent was relied upon in the order.

The Court treated the petitioner’s entitlement to operate as conditional on the activities being lawful.

It held that police interference with lawful spa operations would infringe the petitioner’s Article 19(1)(g) rights and affect the livelihood of the proprietor and employees.

At the same time, the police’s authority to investigate credible information of illegality remained intact, including the liberty to visit the premises and act in accordance with law.

The Court did not determine whether the petitioner could operate without a trade licence under Section 353.

The order does not prevent lawful police action if unlawful activity is found.

No order as to costs was made.