IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.55494/2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SHYJU S. RAM, S/O KUNHI RAMAN O. AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: PROPRIETOR, M/S AYATI AYURVEDIC AND YOGA CENTRE, NEAR HOTEL ROOPA, BEAUTY PLAZA BUILDING MANGALORE – 575 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.UMESH P.B., ADV. FOR SRI.R.B.DESHPANDE, ADV.) AND:
1. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, MANGALORE CITY, NEAR A.B. SHETTY CIRCLE, STATE BANK OF INDIA, MANGALURU – 575 001.
2. THE POLICE INSPECTOR, MANGALURU NORTH POLICE STATION, BANDAR, D.K. – 575 001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER, MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION, LALBAGH MAIN ROAD, MANGALORE – 575 003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, HCGP FOR R1 & R2.
SRI. S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, ADV. FOR R3.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 AND 2 AND THEIR MEN, AGENTS REPRESENTATIVES AND OFFICERS FROM IN ANY MANNER NOT TO DISTURB OR INTERFERE WITH CARRYING A LAWFUL PROFESSION OF THE PETITIONER’S AYURVEDIC AND YOGA CENTRE IN THE NAME AND STYLE M/S. AYATI AYURVEDIC AND YOGA CENTRE.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondents No.1 and 2. Sri Vishwajith Shetty, learned counsel to accept notice for respondent No.3. They are permitted to file their memo of appearance/vakalath in four weeks.
2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondents No.1 and 2 not to disturb or interfere with the lawful profession of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner contends that he is running a Ayurvedic Panchakarma Therapeutic Centre in the name and style ‘Ayati Ayurvedic and Yoga Centre’ at Mangalore City. In that regard, the petitioner is stated to have obtained the license from the Mangalore City Corporation. The petitioner contends that, though he is carrying on the practice in accordance with law, the respondent No.2 has been interfering with the business without any cause whatsoever. It is in that light, the petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus.
4. Having taken note of the contention, it is needless to mention that, if the necessary permission/license is obtained and the business is being carried on in accordance with law, certainly there cannot be interference. However, the respondents No.1 and 2 in any event is required to ensure that the business being carried on by the petitioner is in accordance with law. Hence, in that direction, though the inspection could be carried on, the action, if any against the petitioner is to be taken only after registering a case and proceeding further in accordance with law. To the said extent, the respondents would have the liberty. Unless such action in accordance with law is taken, the respondents shall not interfere with the lawful business of the petitioner.
The petition is accordingly disposed of with such liberty and direction.
Sd/- JUDGE ST