M.Velayutham v. The Commissioner Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 02.06.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN W.P.No.14316 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 M.Velayutham .. Petitioner
Versus
1 The Commissioner of Police The Greater Chennai Police, Vepery, Chennai 2 The Inspector of Police Guindy Police Station, Guindy, Chennai.
.. Respondents Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of mandamus,forbearing the respondents or their men agents from interfering with the peaceful conduct of business in the name of "Aromaze Family Body Saloon & SPA" at No.12, Veeramamunivar Street, Ambal Nagar, Ekkattuthangal, Chennai - 600 032.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Dharmaraj.
For Respondents : Mr.Rm.Muthukumar Government Advocate
O R D E R
By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioner would state that he is carrying on business in the name and style of "Aromaze Family Body Saloon & SPA" at Door No.12, Veeramamunivar Street, Ambal Nagar, Ekkattuthangal, Chennai - 600 032, for the past one year, without giving any room for complaints and according to him, massage by adopting Ayurveda method in a traditional Kerala style of treatment is given. The petitioner would further state that no illegal or immoral activities, are going on while conducting the said business. But, however, the 2nd respondent-police under the guise of inspection, is causing hindrance for running the said business and in this regard, he has also submitted a representation dated 15.04.2015 to the 1st respondent with a copy marked to the 2nd respondent requesting them not to interfere with his lawful business and since, he has not been favoured with any response, came forward to file this writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the matter in issue is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in W.P.No.24629 of 2014 etc. batch, dated 09.12.2014, reported in 2015 (1) MLJ 308 [Masti Health and Beauty Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Police, Chennai] and hence, prays for appropriate orders.
4. This Court heard the submissions of Mr.Rm.Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the respondents.
5. This Court, in paragraph No.67 of the above cited judgment has given certain directions. The 1st Respondent being a party to the said decision, is bound by the directions / guidelines given in Paragraph No.67 of the said judgment.
6. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of and the respondents are directed to follow the above cited judgment in letter and spirit. It is also made clear that the petitioner shall not indulge in any unlawful or immoral activities, while conducting the said business and it is always open to the respondents to exercise their powers strictly in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. ars s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1 The Commissioner of Police The Greater Chennai Police, Vepery, Chennai
2 The Inspector of Police Guindy Police Station, Guindy, Chennai.
+ 2 ccs to Mr.K.Dharmaraj, Advocate SR 25964 & 26254 + 1 cc to Govt.Pleader SR 26143 ug(co) prk12/6 W.P.No.14316 of 2015