Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Kamal Kishore Bajaj, aged about 58 years and proprietor of KK Confectionery, approached the Telangana High Court alleging continuous interference by the respondent authorities with his business activities. According to the petition, the petitioner was carrying on business under the name and style of KK Confectionery Traders at Chand Market, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District.

The petitioner asserted that his business was being conducted lawfully under valid waybills and licence and upon payment of GST and other applicable taxes. His grievance was that, despite such claimed lawful compliance, the respondent police authorities were continuously interfering with his business activities.

The dispute arose in the context of Notification No. 501/FSS-1/2022 dated 07 January 2022, issued by the Telangana authorities in exercise of powers under Section 30 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The notification prohibited, for the specified period, the manufacture, storage, distribution, transportation and sale of Gutka/Pan Masala containing tobacco and nicotine and specified chewing tobacco products across Telangana.

The petitioner relied upon interim orders of the Supreme Court affecting the operation of the said notification and contended that, notwithstanding those orders, police interference with his business continued. He therefore invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India and sought a Writ of Mandamus against such interference.

The petitioner also filed I.A. No. 1 of 2022 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking an interim direction restraining the respondents from interfering with and harassing him in relation to lawful business activities and sale of tobacco products permissible under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COTPA), pending disposal of the writ petition.

Issues Involved

The principal issues arising from the proceedings were:

  1. Whether police authorities could continue interfering with the petitioner’s business activities while the relevant prohibition notification dated 07 January 2022 remained subject to operative interim stay orders of the Supreme Court.
  2. Whether continued seizure, registration of cases, harassment or coercive interference contrary to operative judicial orders was legally sustainable.
  3. Whether the petitioner’s writ petition was squarely covered by the Telangana High Court’s earlier common order dated 21 September 2022 in W.P. No. 34806 of 2022 and batch.
  4. Whether the respondent authorities were bound to comply with the Supreme Court’s interim orders and the circular subsequently issued by the Director General of Police.
  5. Whether officers acting contrary to the judicial orders and the DGP circular could face serious judicial scrutiny.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the subject matter of W.P. No. 37703 of 2022 was squarely covered by the common order dated 21 September 2022 passed in W.P. No. 34806 of 2022 and batch. Accordingly, the petitioner requested that the present writ petition be disposed of in terms of that earlier common order.

The petitioner’s underlying case was that:

  • the business was being carried on lawfully;
  • valid waybills and licence supported the business activities;
  • GST and other taxes were being paid;
  • the Supreme Court had passed interim orders affecting the operation of the prohibition notification dated 07 January 2022;
  • despite those judicial orders, the police authorities continued interfering with the business;
  • such interference was alleged to be arbitrary, illegal and contrary to principles of natural justice; and
  • the petitioner was entitled to protection against unauthorized police interference and harassment.

The annexed common order in W.P. No. 34806 of 2022 and batch further records the broader arguments raised by similarly situated petitioners. Those petitioners alleged that, despite the Supreme Court’s interim stay, authorities were seizing tobacco stocks, registering cases, calling traders to police stations and interfering with day-to-day business activities.

It was also argued in the connected matters that where seized stock was not properly produced before the competent court, affected persons were deprived of the opportunity to seek appropriate relief under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Respondents’ Arguments

In the present writ petition, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home did not dispute the petitioner’s submission that the matter was covered by the common order dated 21 September 2022 in W.P. No. 34806 of 2022 and batch.

In the annexed connected proceedings, the Assistant Government Pleader for Home had submitted that officials were being advised regarding the legal position and sought time to sensitize the concerned officers.

However, the Court in the connected batch expressed dissatisfaction with repeated claims that officers still required sensitization, particularly when the Government itself was a party to proceedings concerning the Supreme Court’s interim order.

Subsequently, the Assistant Government Pleader placed before the Court a Circular Memorandum dated 19 September 2022 issued by the Director General of Police, Telangana State, directing police authorities to comply with the Supreme Court and High Court orders.

Court Order / Findings

The Telangana High Court recorded the submission of the petitioner’s counsel that the matter was squarely covered by the common order dated 21 September 2022 in W.P. No. 34806 of 2022 and batch. The Court further recorded that this position was not disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

Following the earlier common order, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction that:

the respondents shall not interfere with the business activities of the petitioner so long as the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) Nos. 1656 and 5399 of 2022 remain in operation.

The Court additionally noted that the Director General of Police had issued a circular to all concerned authorities.

Significantly, the Court stated that if any officer initiated action contrary to the judicial orders and the DGP circular, such action would be viewed seriously.

The Court further directed that the common order dated 21 September 2022 in W.P. No. 34806 of 2022 and batch be annexed to the present order.

The writ petition was disposed of without any order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were closed.

Important Clarification

This judgment should not be read as a general declaration that every tobacco product or every tobacco-related business activity is lawful or immune from regulatory action.

The operative protection granted by the Court was expressly connected with the continued operation of the relevant Supreme Court orders. The High Court’s direction restrained interference with the petitioner’s business activities till the Supreme Court orders referred to in the judgment remained in operation.

Therefore, the ruling is materially dependent upon:

  • the scope and continued operation of the Supreme Court’s interim orders;
  • the legal effect of the stay concerning Notification No. 501/FSS-1/2022 dated 07 January 2022;
  • the factual nature of the petitioner’s business activities;
  • compliance with other applicable laws; and
  • the terms of the DGP circular and connected High Court orders.

The Court did not grant an unrestricted licence to violate independent statutory prohibitions. Its direction was focused on preventing interference contrary to operative superior-court orders and the administrative circular issued to implement them.

Sections / Legal Provisions Involved

Article 226 of the Constitution of India — Constitutional jurisdiction of High Courts to issue writs, including a Writ of Mandamus.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India — Referred to in the connected batch petitions concerning alleged interference with personal liberty and coercive police conduct.

Section 30(2)(a) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 — Relevant to the prohibition imposed through the Telangana notification concerning manufacture, storage, distribution, transportation and sale of specified tobacco and nicotine-containing products.

Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Invoked in I.A. No. 1 of 2022 seeking interim protection against interference and harassment.

Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Referred to in the annexed common order concerning applications for custody/disposal of property produced before a criminal court.

Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COTPA) — Relied upon by the petitioner in seeking protection for sale of tobacco products claimed to be permissible under applicable law.

Principles of Natural Justice — Invoked against allegedly arbitrary and unauthorized interference with lawful business activities.

Link to download the order -https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783415602_1361compressed.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.