Fundamental rights to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g) cannot be restricted by oral executive orders without a valid statutory foundation, provided the business does not encroach upon public spaces or cause public nuisance.

ORDER

Prologue:

The present writ petition raises an issue touching upon the delicate balance between an individual's constitutional right to carry on a lawful trade and the obligation of the State to maintain public order and regulate civic life. The petitioner, a hotelier operating an eatery catering predominantly to lorry drivers, load workers, market labourers and interstate travellers during late night and early morning hours, seeks protection from alleged interference by the police authorities who are insisting upon closure of his establishment after 10.30 p.m.

The question before this Court is not merely whether a hotel can remain open beyond a particular hour, but whether the police, in the absence of any specific statutory prohibition, can compel closure of a licensed food establishment and thereby restrict the petitioner's right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

Factual background:

The petitioner is running a hotel under the name and style of "Azar Mahal" situated at No.11, Fruit Market Complex, Mattuthavani, Melur Main Road, Madurai. It is his specific case that he possesses a valid licence issued by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India bearing Registration No.22426573000009 dated 08.01.2026.

According to the petitioner, the Fruit and Vegetable Market situated at Mattuthavani functions extensively during night hours owing to the arrival of lorries transporting fruits and vegetables from various States. Consequently, a large number of labourers, drivers, cleaners, traders and passengers frequent the locality during the night and early morning hours.

The petitioner would state that the peak hours of his business fall between midnight and dawn and that the establishment serves food to persons engaged in market-related activities as well as passengers utilizing the nearby bus terminus. The grievance of the petitioner is that the officers attached to the second respondent police station have been repeatedly insisting that he close down the hotel after 10.30 p.m. and have allegedly threatened adverse consequences in the event of non-compliance.

The petitioner would contend that there exists no statutory provision empowering the police authorities to prescribe opening and closing timings for eateries and restaurants and therefore the action of the respondents amounts to an infringement of his fundamental right to carry on trade and business.

Case of the petitioner:

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is carrying on a lawful business under a valid licence issued by the competent authority and that the establishment caters to a genuine public need during late night hours. It was further submitted that the right to carry on any lawful occupation, trade or business is protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and any restriction thereon must be backed by statutory authority and must satisfy the test of reasonableness.

Learned counsel would further contend that neither the respondents nor any police authority possesses power under the relevant enactments to orally direct closure of restaurants or eateries at a particular hour. Reliance was placed upon the decisions of this Court wherein it has been consistently held that in the absence of any statutory prohibition, the police cannot compel restaurants and eateries to close merely on the apprehension of possible law and order issues.

Learned counsel also relied upon G.O.(D).No.207, Labour Welfare and Skill Development Department, dated 08.05.2025 and submitted that the policy of the Government itself recognizes operation of eligible establishments on a 24 x 7 basis subject to compliance with applicable laws.

Stand of the respondents:

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the police authorities have no intention of preventing the petitioner from carrying on a lawful business. It was submitted that the concern of the police a