Facts of the Case

Mojo Wellness Beauty and Spa, a proprietorship business at Kothapet, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus restraining the State of Telangana, the Commissioner of Police, an Assistant Commissioner of Police and the Station House Officer, Chaitanyapuri Police Station, from interfering with its lawful spa and wellness business.

The petitioner contended that despite holding valid business registrations and running a saloon/spa/massage business, respondent police officials visited the premises and demanded that the petitioner obtain fresh court orders to continue operating, citing a 2010 notification.

The petitioner relied on an earlier Telangana High Court common order dated 28 September 2021 in W.P. No. 16281 of 2010 and batch, which had already permitted massage/spa centres to operate subject to specified safeguards — maintaining a customer visitor register, allowing police verification, not keeping the main entrance closed during working hours, and ensuring no immoral activity occurred under the guise of massage services.

The State's Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that the petitioner was operating without obtaining permission from the municipal authorities and GST, as required by law, and that the respondents had not otherwise interfered with the business activities.

The writ petition (W.P. No. 12763 of 2026) was heard and disposed of at the admission stage by Justice E.V. Venugopal on 23 April 2026, with the consent of both sides.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner spa needed to obtain a fresh, separate court order before being allowed to continue its business, when an earlier common order of the same High Court (in W.P. No. 16281 of 2010 and batch) already governed the conduct of such massage/spa centres.
  2. Whether the police could insist on verification of compliance with the safeguards laid down in the earlier order.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner holds valid registration certificates for running its wellness and spa business in Hyderabad and Ranga Reddy.
  • It was already implementing the directions of the 2021 common order and had not deviated from them in any manner.
  • Despite this compliance, the respondent police were insisting that the petitioner secure a fresh order from the Court merely to continue the business, which was unnecessary and amounted to interference.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The petitioner had not obtained permission from the municipal authorities and under GST law as required, before operating its business activities.
  • The respondents were not, in fact, interfering with the petitioner's business and would continue to follow the directions already issued by the Court in the 2021 order.

Court Order / Findings

  • The writ petition was disposed of by directing the petitioner to follow the directions already issued by the Court in its earlier order dated 28 September 2021 in W.P. No. 16281 of 2010 and batch (the customer-register, non-closure-of-entrance, and anti-immoral-activity safeguards).
  • The order clarified that this disposal did not preclude the respondent police from verifying the petitioner's compliance with those directions, and that police could take appropriate steps in accordance with law, and the petitioner would cooperate with any such enquiry, if a complaint were made.
  • It was left open to the petitioner to obtain permission from the Municipal and GST authorities and to comply with the 2021 order.
  • No costs were awarded and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Important Clarification

This is a business-regulation/policing order, not a GST ruling. The Court's only reference to GST was a passing observation, echoed from the State's submission, that the petitioner should also obtain the requisite GST registration/compliance — the substance of the order concerns whether police can insist on separate court clearance for spas already covered by an existing judicial framework for massage centres.

Sections Involved

  • Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 (writ jurisdiction) and Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) (right to carry on business), invoked in the petition.
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Section 151, under which the accompanying interim application was filed.
  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — referred to only in passing regarding the petitioner's obligation to hold GST registration/permission for its business, not the substantive subject of adjudication.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of by consent, directing the petitioner to continue following the safeguards already laid down in the 2021 common order — a procedural clarification rather than a decision in favour of either side on the merits of the interference allegation.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad
  • Case No.: Writ Petition No. 12763 of 2026 (with reference to earlier W.P. No. 16281 of 2010 and batch)
  • Coram: Justice E.V. Venugopal
  • Date of Order: 23 April 2026

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

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.