Modern Dental College v. Sfafe of Madhya Pradesh

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction more especially one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugnednotificationNo.(L&o)/M4/314ot2o1o,dated30-06-2o10passedbythe respondent is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Article 1a, 19(1) (g) of the constitution of lndia, contrary to the provisions of the Hyderabad city Police Act, 1348 Fasli, and consequently set aside the same against the petitioner. l.A. NO:1 OF 201 WPMP. NO: 11566 oF 2016 ) Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the i pugned notification No. (L&O)/M4 1314012010, dated 30-06-2010 @-f- passed by the 2nd respondent against the petitioner' pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the P'etitioners: SRI GORLE GOPALAKRISHNA(NONE APPEARED) Counsel for the Flespondents: SRI R' LAXMIKANTH REDDY' AGP FOR HOME The Court made rthe following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJT N No.9122 OF ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief: "...fo lssue a writ or order more pafticularly one in the nature of writ of declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned notificatbn No.(L&Q/MaB|40/ 2010 dated 30.06.2010 passed by the respondent is illqal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Article 14J9fi)(g) of the Constitution of lndia Contrary to the provisions of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli, and consequently set aside the same against the petitioner fo pass such other order or orders as fhr.s Hon'ble C;ourt may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case .... " None appeared for the petitioner Heard Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government

3. Pleader for Home appearing for respondents.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that, by virtue of an interim order dated 20.06.2017, this Court permitted the petitioner to continue his business operations, subject to compliance with certain stipulated conditions. lt is further submitted that, subsequent to the passing of the said interim order, the petitioner has not raised any further contest. ln these circumstan@s, the learned Government Pleader prays that appropriate final orders may be passed in the matter.

5. I have perused the materials available on record. ,. 2

6. lt is pertinent to note that, in an identical matter concerning massage centres, this rlourt, while adjudicating W.P. No. 797 of 2014and connected batch cases, by order dated 05.02.2012, held as under: \ "l om af the considered opinion that the Commissioner of Folice, Hyderabod City, is entitled to toke' oll reosonoble measures to prevent indecent ond immorol octivities, particulorly in massage centres. However, insteod of prohibit'ing the operation of such centres altogether, it is oppropriote to direct thot every mossoge centre must foithfully mointoin o register recording dote- wise visits of customers, together with their names, verifioble oddresses, and phone numbers, so as to enoble the police to conduct verification, if necessory. lf any c'ustomer specifically requests seruices involving the opposite sex, the some shall also be duly recorded in such register. lt shall be open to ony police officer not below the ronk of Sublnspector of Police to verify, from time to time, the records mointoined by mossoge centres and to oscertoin whether any customer hos solicited such special seruice- Bosed on such verificotion, oppropriote action may be taken in accordonce with low."

7. The rationale behind the aforesaid direction is to strike a balance between two competing interests: (i) the duty of the State to uphold public morality and prevent exploitation, in line with Articles 19(2) and 47 of the Constitution <lf lndia, and (ii) the fundamental right of the petitioner to carry on a lawful trade or business underArticle 19(1)(g), subject to reasonable restrictions. Courts have consistently emphasised that restrictions on trade must be rear;onable, proportionate, and not arbitrary (Sfafe of Gujarat v Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, (2005) 8 SCC 534; Modern Dental College v. Sfafe of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 7 SCC 353).

8. ln the ;:resent case, the interim direction issued earlier achieves this delicate balance. By allowing the petitionerto continue his business subject' J to strict record-keeping and regulatory oversight, it safeguards legitimate business operations while empowering the police to prevent unlawful or immoral practices. This regulatory model is consistent with the doctrine of proportionality and aligns with the jurisprudence that the State should regulate, rather than completely prohibit, lavvful activities {Chintaman Rao v. Sfafe of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1951 SC 118)

9. Accordingly, this Court deems it just and proper to direct the petitioner to ensure strict and faithful compiiance with the conditions specified in W.P. No. 797 of 2014 and connected batch cases, by order dated 05.02.2012, rnentioned hereinabove. Upon such compliance, the respondent police authorities shall refrain from interfering with the petitioner's lawful business activities, except in circumstances expressly sarrctioned by law. Ordered accordingly.

10. With this direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed SD/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER /TRUE COPY/ To, Telangand, HYderabad. ..

1. The Principal secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, The State of 2. iil cL*.,.iissi''o#r-ot pol ice, Hyderabad. C ity,. Hyd e ra bad . 5: d; cC 6 st G;;b Gopalakrilhna, A-dvocatg toPuq f . i;; agr-io ciroi n;"ie, Higrr court for the State of Telangana' at 5. Two CD CoPbs Hvderabad [OUT] TJ PVL d HIGH COUI1T DATED:09/09/2025 ORDER WP.No.91212 of 2016 t I o * '[ tl ( ? ? ,lnru zozo ";':: -ir j. DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I t