Petitioner is a company who is carrying on the business of marketing of goods and services including financial products and services. This writ petition is filed on the apprehension that there is an attempt on the part of respondents 2 and 3 to close down the business activities of the petitioner.
2. The learned State Attorney, on instructions, has filed a statement inter alia stating that the averments made against respondents 2 and 3 are absolutely baseless. It is stated that no such restrictive directions have been issued by the police department. It is further stated that no person by name Alexander Jose has given any such complaints and there was no occasion for any such enquiry. The respondents therefore denied the averments made in the writ petition.
W.P.C.No.13944/2014 2 Having regard to the nature of contentions urged by respondents 2 and 3, I do not think that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is in any way justifiable. Petitioner is entitled to carry on business in accordance with law. Apparently, if any illegal activity is committed by the petitioner, definitely the police can interfere, in accordance with the procedure.
With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed.
(sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr