M/S. Frame 3 Unisex Saloon v. The Commissioner Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 31.01.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU W.P.No.33484 of 2017 M/s.Frame 3 Unisex Saloon & Spa, Rep.by its Proprietor, No.65/33, Prakasam Salai, George Town, Chennai-600 108.
... Petitioner
Versus
1.The Commissioner of Police, The Greater Chennai Police, Veperi, Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police, N3 Muthaiyalpet Police Station, Broadway, Chennai-600 008.
... Respondents PRAYER:
Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents, or their men or agents from interfering with the peaceful conduct of the business of the petitioner in the name and style of ''Frame 3 Unisex Saloon & Spa'' at No.65/33, Prakasam Salai, George Town, Chennai-600 108. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sandhya For Respondents : Mr.R.Govindasamy, Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The petitioner seeks for a Mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with the peaceful conduct of the petitioner's business in the name and style of ''Frame 3 Unisex Saloon & Spa''.
2. Heard both sides.
3. It is stated that the petitioner is running a Saloon and Spa under the name and style of ''Frame 3 Unisex Saloon & Spa'' for more than five years. It is also stated that the petitioner has obtained necessary License from the Corporation as provided under the law. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are trying to interfere with the running of the said business without having any valid reasons.
4. Mr.R.Govindasamy, learned Special Government Pleader based on instructions submitted that these respondents are not interfering with the petitioner's business at any point of time and therefore, the allegation made against these respondents are not fully correct. However, he has submitted that if the petitioner indulges in any unlawful activity under the guise of running the said business, it is always open to the Police Authorities to take appropriate action against the petitioner. Needless to say that as long as the petitioner is running the said business in accordance with law after obtaining necessary
License from the competent authorities, the respondents cannot interfere with the same, unless they are given to understand or they come across that the petitioner is indulging in any unlawful activity in the said premises.
5. Considering the above submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader that the respondents are not interfering with the running of the petitioner's business, this writ petition stands disposed of by recording the above said undertaking given by the respondents, however, by granting liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner, if any unlawful activity is carried on by the petitioner in the said premises. No costs. 31.01.2018 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking Order sk/rka To 1.The Commissioner of Police, The Greater Chennai Police, Veperi, Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police, N3 Muthaiyalpet Police Station, Broadway, Chennai-600 008.
K.RAVICHANDRABAABU.,J sk/rka W.P.No.33484 of 2017 31.01.2018