THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.9122 OF 2016

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…to issue a writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned notification No.(L&O)/M4/3140/ 2010 dated 30.06.2010 passed by the respondent is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Article 14,19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India Contrary to the provisions of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli, and consequently set aside the same against the petitioner to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case ….”

2. None appeared for the petitioner.

3. Heard Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government 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. It is further submitted that, subsequent to the passing of the said interim order, the petitioner has not raised any further contest. In these circumstances, the learned Government Pleader prays that appropriate final orders may be passed in the matter.

5. I have perused the materials available on record.

6. It is pertinent to note that, in an identical matter concerning massage centres, this Court, while adjudicating W.P. No. 797 of 2014 and connected batch cases, by order dated 05.02.2012, held as under:

“I am of the considered opinion that the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, is entitled to take all reasonable measures to prevent indecent and immoral activities, particularly in massage centres. However, instead of prohibiting the operation of such centres altogether, it is appropriate to direct that every massage centre must faithfully maintain a register recording date- wise visits of customers, together with their names, verifiable addresses, and phone numbers, so as to enable the police to conduct verification, if necessary. If any customer specifically requests services involving the opposite sex, the same shall also be duly recorded in such register. It shall be open to any police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police to verify, from time to time, the records maintained by massage centres and to ascertain whether any customer has solicited such special service. Based on such verification, appropriate action may be taken in accordance with law.”

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 of India, and (ii) the fundamental right of the petitioner to carry on a lawful trade or business under Article 19(1)(g), subject to reasonable restrictions. Courts have consistently emphasised that restrictions on trade must be reasonable, proportionate, and not arbitrary (State of Gujarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat, (2005) 8 SCC 534; Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2016) 7 SCC 353).

8. In the present case, the interim direction issued earlier achieves this delicate balance. By allowing the petitioner to continue his business subject 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, lawful activities (Chintaman Rao v.

State 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 compliance with the conditions specified in W.P