The petitioners in all these writ petitions are running beauty parlours/ massage centers/Spas in and around the city of Chennai. They have come up with these writ petitions, seeking the issue of writs of mandamus to forbear the respondents from interfering with the business carried on by them.

2. I have heard Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.408 of 2014, Messers. S.Nagarajan, Srinath Sridevan, B.Rabu Mahohar, Ashok Menon, K.Harishankar, K. Dharmaraj, C.Yokesh, R.Thirumalai, D.Sam Nandhakumar, E.P.Senniyangiri, R.Manimuthu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the other writ petitions and Mr.P.H.Arvind Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State and Dr.C. Ravichandran and Mr.A.P.Balasubramanian, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Chennai Corporation.

3. Admittedly, the petitioners are running beauty parlours or massage centers or spas. It appears that they are subjected to raids, on a regular basis, by the officials of the Anti-Vice Squad of the Chennai City Police. Therefore, claiming that such raids and the frequent interference by the Police not only spoiled their business but also projected them in poor light and that the same also amounted to an interference with their fundamental right to carry on a lawful business, the petitioners have come up with the above writ petitions.

4. Of all the writ petitions on hand, one writ petition stands out. The said writ petition is the one filed by a company by name Influence Enterprises (India) Private Limited in W.P.No.408 of 2014. This company had already filed a civil suit in C.S.No.251 of 2009 on the file of the Original Side of this Court, praying for a decree of mandatory injunction to direct the State to formulate Rules and Regulations for conducting spa centres and for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful conduct of their business.

5. Along with the suit, the said company also filed an application in O.A.No.249 of 2009 for an interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from disturbing or interfering with the peaceful conduct of their business. By an order dated 31.7.2009, K.Chandru,J, allowed the application for interim injunction, holding that the Police have no legal right to prevent a health spa run by a citizen, even if some of the services rendered therein are by persons belonging to the opposite sex. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme court, the learned Judge pointed out that majoritarian impulses rooted in moralistic tradition cannot impinge upon individual autonomy. However, the learned Judge added a word of caution as follows:-

"At the same time, there is no prohibition for the respondent-Police to inspect and take appropriate action in accordance with law, in cases of any criminal activities prohibited by law."

6. As a matter of fact, all the writ petitioners rely upon the aforesaid order of K.Chandru, J, in support of their contention that a lawful business run by them, cannot be painted black with the same brush and that the said decision should be treated more or less as a judgment in rem.

7. Therefore, at the outset, it is necessary to find whether the businesses carried on by the writ petitioners, are lawful or not. To find out if a business is lawful or not, we must see if it is prohibited by law. If it is not prohibited by law, we must then see if it is atleast regulated by law. If it is regulated by law, it would be lawful so long as it is carried on as per the regulations. Otherwise, it would be unlawful.

8. The respondents do not contend that the massage centers/spas etc., run by the petitioners are prohibited by law. They do not even contend that these are regulated by any special law enacted by the Central Government or at least the State of Tamilnadu or that the petitioners are running these centers in violation of such law. If at all there is any requirement under law, for these establishments, it is onl