Facts of the Case

The petitioners were proprietors carrying on tobacco-product businesses under their respective trade concerns, namely Royal Agencies, Adeeb Traders Kaghaznagar, and Suresh Traders. They asserted that their businesses were being conducted lawfully under valid licences, supported by valid waybills, GST registrations, payment of GST and other applicable taxes, and in relation to tobacco products permissible under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COTPA 2003).

The petitioners approached the Telangana High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, alleging continuous interference by police authorities with their business activities. Their case was that such interference persisted notwithstanding the judicial protection operating in relation to the tobacco prohibition notification dated 07.01.2022 and the interim orders referred to in SLP(C) Nos. 1656 and 5399 of 2022 and W.P.(C) No. 195 of 2022.

The petitioners alleged that the respondents’ interference with lawful business activities was arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice. In their interlocutory applications under Section 151 CPC, they sought directions restraining the respondents from interfering with or harassing them in relation to lawful business activities and sale of tobacco products permissible under COTPA 2003, pending disposal of the writ petitions.

The uploaded order records that the controversy was stated to be squarely covered by the Telangana High Court’s earlier common order dated 21.09.2022 in W.P. No. 34806 of 2022 and batch.

Issues Involved

The principal issues arising from the common order were:

  1. Whether police authorities could continue to interfere with the petitioners’ business activities while the relevant orders of the Supreme Court in SLP(C) Nos. 1656 and 5399 of 2022 remained in operation.
  2. Whether the present writ petitions were squarely covered by the earlier common order dated 21.09.2022 passed in W.P. No. 34806 of 2022 and batch.
  3. Whether interference with businesses claimed to be conducted lawfully under valid licences, waybills, GST registrations and tax compliance could be sustained contrary to the prevailing judicial orders and the circular issued by the Director General of Police.
  4. Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to restrain police interference with the petitioners’ business activities.
  5. Whether action by individual officers contrary to the Director General of Police’s circular and the applicable judicial directions warranted serious judicial concern.

Petitioners’ Arguments

The petitioners, represented by learned counsel Mr. Gajanand Chakravarthi, contended that:

  • They were carrying on business activities under valid licences and valid waybills.
  • Their respective concerns had GST registrations and were paying GST and other applicable taxes.
  • Their businesses involved tobacco products claimed to be permissible under COTPA 2003.
  • Despite the judicial orders operating in the matter, police authorities were allegedly continuously interfering with their business activities.
  • Such interference was arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice.
  • Most importantly at the stage of final disposal, learned counsel submitted that the subject matter of all three writ petitions was squarely covered by the common order dated 21.09.2022 in W.P. No. 34806 of 2022 and batch.
  • Accordingly, the petitioners requested disposal of the writ petitions in terms of that earlier common order.

These submissions are reflected in the petition pleadings on pages 1–4 and the operative common order on page 5 of the uploaded PDF.

Respondents’ Arguments

The respondents were represented by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

The common order specifically records that the petitioners’ submission—that the subject matter was squarely covered by the earlier common order in W.P. No. 34806 of 2022 and batch dated 21.09.2022—was not disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

This absence of dispute was material to the manner in which the High Court disposed of the connected writ petitions.

Court Order / Findings

The Telangana High Court recorded the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and followed its earlier common order dated 21.09.2022 in W.P. No. 34806 of 2022 and batch.

The Court accordingly disposed of the writ petitions with the following material directions and findings:

  • The respondents were directed not to interfere with the business activities of the petitioners till the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) Nos. 1656 and 5399 of 2022 remained in operation.
  • The Court recorded that the Director General of Police had issued a circular to all concerned.
  • The Court further stated that if any officer initiated action contrary to the same, such action would be viewed seriously.
  • The common order dated 21.09.2022 in W.P. No. 34806 of 2022 and batch was directed to be annexed to the present order.
  • The writ petitions were disposed of with no order as to costs.
  • Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petitions stood closed.

The operative directions appear on page 5, while page 6 records closure of pending miscellaneous applications.

Important Clarification

This decision should not be read as an unconditional or permanent judicial declaration granting unrestricted freedom to conduct every form of tobacco business.

The protection granted by the High Court was expressly linked to the duration for which the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) Nos. 1656 and 5399 of 2022 remained in operation. Therefore, the direction was conditional and co-extensive with the continued operation of those Supreme Court orders.

A further important clarification is that the High Court did not undertake a fresh, elaborate adjudication of every underlying factual and legal controversy in the three petitions. Instead, it disposed of the matters by following the earlier common order dated 21.09.2022 in W.P. No. 34806 of 2022 and batch, after the petitioners stated that the controversy was squarely covered and the State side did not dispute that submission.

The order is also significant because it expressly records the existence of a Director General of Police circular and warns that action by officers contrary to the same would be viewed seriously.

Sections / Legal Provisions Involved

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India — Writ jurisdiction of the High Court; the petitioners sought relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus.
  • Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Inherent powers of the Court; invoked in the interlocutory applications seeking protection against alleged interference and harassment.
  • Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COTPA 2003) — Referred to by the petitioners in support of their case concerning sale of tobacco products permissible under the statutory framework.
  • Tobacco prohibition notification dated 07.01.2022 — Central to the factual background pleaded by the petitioners.
  • SLP(C) Nos. 1656 and 5399 of 2022 — Supreme Court proceedings expressly referred to in the High Court’s operative direction.
  • W.P.(C) No. 195 of 2022 — Referred to in the pleadings concerning the judicial background.
  • W.P. No. 34806 of 2022 and batch, common order dated 21.09.2022 — The directly followed precedent forming the basis of disposal of the present writ petitions.

Link to Download the Order-https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783416286_1418compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.