Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 5799
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N. NAGARESH, J
SHALI – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF (THRISSUR CITY) – Respondent
WP(C) 2525/2023
K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN
Authorities conducting investigations must balance their actions with the rights of business owners to operate without unlawful harassment.
Headnote:
Harassment - Beauty Parlour Operations - [Relevant Acts and Sections] - This case deals with the legal provisions governing business operations and the conduct of investigations, focusing on the balance between lawful investigation and protection from harassment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner operates a Beauty Parlour and claims to be harassed by an officer following complaints about unauthorized operations. The petitioner asserts compliance with legal requirements and no illegal activities.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is being unlawfully harassed by law enforcement in the operation of her Beauty Parlour.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that while investigations can proceed, harassment or intimidation of the petitioner must not occur during this process.
Final Decision: The court directs the Station House Officer not to harass the petitioner while allowing lawful investigation.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2023 The petitioner, who is running a Beauty Parlour in Aranattukara, Poothole in Thrissur District, has approached this Court seeking to direct the respondents to ensure that the petitioner and her employees and customers are not to be harassed or intimidated by the respondents, except other than by the process of law.
2. The petitioner states that she is running a Beauty Parlour. On the basis of some complaint, the 2nd respondent- Station House Officer is harassing the petitioner, her employees and customers. The petitioner is conducting the Beauty Parlour after obtaining a trade licence from the Local Self Government Institution. No illegal activities are going on in the Beauty Parlour. The continued harassment by the 2nd respondent would affect the business of the petitioner and will tarnish the reputation of the petitioner’s establishment.
3. Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader submitted that certain complaints were received alleging that a Massage Parlour/Spa is being run by the petitioner unauthorisedly without obtaining licence. Enquiries were made and it was found that there are some doubtful entries in the registers maintained by the petitioner.
The petitioner was asked clarification regarding that.
4. The Government Pleader submitted that the respondents have no intention to harass either the petitioner or her employees or customers. The 2nd respondent is only conducting an investigation in respect of a complaint received.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no Massage Parlour/Spa being conducted by the petitioner. The petitioner is running only a Beauty Parlour.
Taking into consideration the facts as stated above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent-Station House Officer not to harass or intimidate the petitioner or her employees or customers. It is made clear that this will not restrain the 2nd respondent from gathering any information/evidence as regards the complaint received against the petitioner and from proceeding in accordance with law.
