Facts
The petitioner, proprietor of a spa in Kalaburagi, alleged that police officials had, without notice or a closure order, compelled him to shut the business.
Source reference: p. 3–6He relied on lease agreements and municipal trade licences and claimed interference with his right to carry on business.
Source reference: p. 3–6The police denied forcibly closing the premises, but submitted that they could inspect spa centres on receiving credible information of illegal activity and take action in accordance with law.
Source reference: p. 3–6The Corporation confirmed that it had issued a trade licence, while stating that the business must be lawful.
Source reference: p. 3–6Issues
Whether the police may obstruct or close the petitioner’s spa without lawful authority, where the petitioner claims to be carrying on a lawful business.
Source reference: p. 3–6Whether the police may inspect the spa and take action when they receive credible information of unlawful activity.
Source reference: p. 4, 6–7Law Applied
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’ right to life and livelihood.
Source reference: p. 6The police may visit premises and take action in accordance with law where they receive credible information of unlawful activity, but may not interfere with lawful business.
Source reference: p. 4, 6–7Reasoning
The Court considered the petitioner’s claim that he held municipal trade licences and was conducting lawful business, alongside the police’s denial of forced closure and assertion of authority to investigate credible reports of illegality.
Source reference: p. 4–6It held that police obstruction of lawful spa activities would infringe the petitioner’s constitutional business right and affect livelihood.
Source reference: p. 6–7At the same time, the Court preserved the police’s ability to visit the premises and act in accordance with law if credible information or inspection disclosed unlawful activity.
Source reference: p. 6–7Holding
The petition was disposed of with directions that the petitioner conduct only lawful activities.
The jurisdictional police may visit the premises upon receiving credible information of unlawful activity and may take action in accordance with law.
Source reference: p. 6–7The respondents must not interfere with the petitioner’s lawful activities.
Source reference: p. 6–7The order does not prevent police action if the petitioner’s activities are found to be unlawful.
Source reference: p. 6–7No order as to costs.
Source reference: p. 6–7Original Court PDF
RAHUL RATHODvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
