S.Satya Beeman v. The Deputy Commissioner Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated:18.10.2024 Coram:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN S.Satya Beeman .. Petitioner /versus/ 1.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law & Order, Avadi Range, Avadi, Thiruvallur District.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Avadi Range, Avadi, Thiruvallur District.
3.The Inspector of Police, T-10, Thirumullaivoyal Police Station, Thirumullaivoyal, Thiruvallur District.
.. Respondents Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's legal business of running Salon, Beauty Parlour and Spa in the name of M/s Max Tree Salon and Spa in the portion in the second floor measuring about 1200 sq.ft of the building situated at Plot No.12, C.T.H.Road, Thirumullaivoyal 1/5
by promptly complying with the conditions specified in the License vide No.012/2024/029/00009 dated 12.01.2024 issued by the Avadi City Municipal Corporation, without following the legal procedures established under law.
For Petitioner :Dr.C.Ravichandran for Mr.S.B.Viswanathan For Respondents :Mr.S.Udayakumar Govt.Advocate (Crl.Side) ------
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed seeking Mandamus forbearing the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's legal business of running Salon, Beauty Parlour and Spa in the name of M/s Max Tree Salon and Spa in the portion in the second floor measuring about 1200 sq.ft of the building situated at Plot No.12, C.T.H.Road, Thirumullaivoyal by promptly complying with the conditions specified in the License vide No.012/2024/029/00009 dated 12.01.2024 issued by the Avadi City Municipal Corporation, without following the legal procedures established under law.
2/5
2.According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the lawful business of the petitioner, after obtaining valid license till 31.03.2025, has been illegally disturbed by the third respondent police and due to their interference, they have closed the Spa. Therefore, protection is required from the illegal interference of the police. 3.The third respondent has filed a counter wherein the allegation of frequent visit to the petitioner's premises is denied and it is also specifically stated that the third respondent had not conducted any inspection or instructed the petitioner to close the Spa. It is reiterated in the counter that the petitioner has closed the Spa on his own and not on the interference of the police.
4. However, the petitioner claims that he has a valid license to run the Spa in the above said premises till 31.03.2025. The business cannot be interfered unless and until there is any violation of the license condition. Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed with a direction to the 3/5
3rd respondent police not to interfere with the business of the petitioner herein without any reasonable cause and if they want to take any action, it should be in accordance with law, after causing notice. No costs. 18.10.2024 Index:yes/no ari To:
1.The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law & Order, Avadi Range, Avadi, Thiruvallur District.
2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Avadi Range, Avadi, Thiruvallur District.
3.The Inspector of Police, T-10, Thirumullaivoyal Police Station, Thirumullaivoyal, Thiruvallur District.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
4/5
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
ari 18.10.2024 5/5