IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION Nos.2702-2703/2017 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
1. MR. ANURAJ B.M., S/O.DIVKAR B.M., AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OFF/A. ABREOS COMPOUND, NEAR BEJAI MUSEUM, MANGALORE, R/O. TALAPADY HOUSE, HOSANGADY B. MANESUAR, KASARGOD, KERALA STATE-671 323.
2. MR. MAXIN K. KURIAN, S/O. K.P.KURIAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OFF/A. BEJAI, CHURCH CROSS ROAD, BEJAI, MANGALORE, R/O. MADTHIMAR HOUSE, KARINJA POST, KAVALA PADOOR VILLAGE, BABTWAL TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT-575 020. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAJARAMA S., ADV.) AND:
1. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, MANGALORE CITY, NEAR A.B.SHETTY CIRCLE, STATE BANK, MANGALORE-01, D.K.DISTRICT-575 003.
2. THE COMMISSIONER, MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION, LALBHAG, MAIN ROAD, MANGALORE-575 003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI VISHWAJITH SHETTY, ADV. FOR R2) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 AND THEIR MEN, AGENTS, REPRESENTATIVES AND OFFICERS FROM IN ANY MANNER NOT TO DISTURB OR INTERFERE WITH CARRYING A LAWFUL PROFESSION OF THE PETITIONERS, LIKE AYURVEDIC PANCHAKARMA THERAPEUTIC TREATMENT AND HEALTH CENTER.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondent No.1. Sri Vishwajith Shetty, learned counsel to accept notice for respondent No.2. They are permitted to file their memo of appearance/vakalath in four weeks.
2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondents not to disturb or interfere with the lawful profession of the petitioner in carrying out Ayurvedic Panchakarma Treatment Therapeutic Treatment and Health Center. The petitioners are before this Court contending that, though the petitioners are conducting the business in accordance with law, there is interference by the local Police in carrying on their activities. It is in that light, the petitioners are seeking issue of mandamus.
3. The learned Government Advocate would at the outset point out that the petitioners though are claiming to carryon their activity in accordance with law, the trade license produced at Annexure-A1 is valid only up to 31.03.2017 and the activities, if are to be carried out by the petitioners, appropriate trade license will have to be obtained by way of renewal and all other requirement of law will have to be complied.
4. In that regard, it is ordered that the Police authorities would not interfere with the activities of the petitioners, unless there is reason to do so and if they find that there is any illegal activity carried on. In that light, it is made clear that, subject to the petitioners obtaining renewal of the trade license, they may carryon the business in accordance with law. However, the Police working under respondent No.1 would be entitled to keep a track and if any illegal activities are noticed, certainly, action could be taken but, only after registering the case in accordance with law and proceeding further in the matter.
With the said observations, the petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST