IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.4238/2017 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
SRI.KRISHNA SALIAN S/O LATE AITHAPPA POOJARY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OFF/A. ARYA SAMAJA ROAD BALMATTA, MANGALORE R/O.” SAMBRAMA” SUBRAMANYA NAGAR PEDMALE POST NEERMARGA, MANGALORE D.K.DISTRICT – 574 142.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI.RAJARAMA.S, ADV.) AND:
1. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE MANGALORE CITY NEAR A.B.SHETTY CIRCLE STATE BANK, MANGALORE – 01. D.K.DISTRICT.
2. THE COMMISSIONER MANGALORE CITY CORPORATION LALBHAG, MAIN ROAD MANGALORE – 575 003.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R-1 SRI VISHWAJITH SHETTY.S., ADV. FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS 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 DISTURBING OR INTERFEERING WITH CARRYING A LAWFUL PROFESSION OF THE PETITIONER, LIKE M/S.PARADISE BEAUTY PARLOUR (UNISEX) THIS WRIT PETITION 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 petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct the first respondent not to disturb or interfere with the carrying on the lawful profession of the petitioner in the name and style ‘M/s. Paradise Beauty Parlour’. The petitioner contends that the beauty parlour in the name and style ‘M/s. Paradise Beauty Parlor’ is being run by the petitioner after complying with the requirements under law.
3. The case of the petitioner is that, despite the same, the officers claiming under respondent No.1 have been interfering with the business of the petitioner. It is in that light, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of mandamus, so as to enable the petitioner to carryon with its business.
4. The learned Government Advocate at the outset would refer to the petition papers and point out that, at this point, the trade license as relied upon has expired on 31.03.2017. Be that as it may, if the petitioner has obtained renewal of the trade license to conduct the business in the manner as indicated therein and if the petitioner complies with all other legal requirements, the respondents shall not interfere with the lawful business of the petitioner. However, if the respondents receive any information with regard to the illegal activities, if any being carried on by the petitioner, certainly, the respondents would be entitled to take action in accordance with law and all such action shall be only after registering a case and thereafter proceeding further in accordance with law, but there shall be no unwarranted interference for no reason.
In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST