Smt Vidya W/O. Ramesh Udapudi vs The State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 746 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Smt Vidya W/O. Ramesh Udapudi vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 July, 2025

Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur

Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur

                                                -1-
                                                           NC: 2025:KHC-D:8427
                                                        WP No. 104334 of 2025


                  HC-KAR



                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
                             DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2025
                                               BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
                        WRIT PETITION NO. 104334 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

                 BETWEEN:

                 1.   SMT. VIDYA W/O. RAMESH UDAPUDI,
                      AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
                      PARTNER OF 'V.R. ENTERPRISES'
                      C/O. SHOP NO.2, BUILDING NO.7,
                      C-BLOCK, AKSYAY COLONY,
                      OPP. NALANDA COLLEGE,
                      VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI.

                 2.   SMT. CHANDINI G.S.,
                      AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
                      PARTNER OF 'V.R. ENTERPRISES'
                      C/O. SHOP NO.2, BUILDING NO.7,
                      C-BLOCK, AKSYAY COLONY,
                      OPP. NALANDA COLLEGE,
                      VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI.
                                                                  ...PETITIONERS
                 (BY SRI. ROHIT L. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE)

VIJAYALAKSHMI    AND:
M KANKUPPI


                 1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF              REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD               DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENCH
                      BENGALURU.

                 2.   THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
                      HUBLI-DHARWAD, DHARWAD DISTRICT,
                      DHARWAD.

                 3.   POLICE SUB INSPECTOR,
                      GOKUL ROAD POLICE STATION,
                      GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI.
                                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
                 (BY SRI. S.V. MAGADUM, AGA)
                                  -2-
                                              NC: 2025:KHC-D:8427
                                         WP No. 104334 of 2025


HC-KAR



      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTIONS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO INTERFERE
WITH DAY TODAY BUSINESS OF THE PETITIONERS I.E., 'BASKIN AND
ROBBINS' (SCOOPS, THICK SHAKES AND CAKES) SITUATED AT SHOP
NO.2, BUILDING NO.7, C-BLOCK, AKSHAY COLONY, OPP. NALANDA
COLLEGE VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI AND PERMIT THE PETITIONERS TO
RUN    THE   BUSINESS     TILL   1.00   AM   AS    PER    THE
NOTIFICATION/OFFICIAL    MEMORANDUM      DATED     19/09/2024
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND ALSO AS PER THE DIRECTIONS
ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO.106364/2024 (GM-
POLICE) AND WP NO.101889/2025 (GM-POLICE) PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-D AND D1, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY
AND ETC.

      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:


                          ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

1. Heard learned counsel Sri. Rohit L. Sheelvant for

the petitioners and the learned AGA Sri. S.V.Magadum for

the respondents-State.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the

petitioners are running a business under the name and style

of "V.R. Enterprises i.e. Baskin & Robbins" situated at shop

No.2, Building No.7, C-Block, Akshay Colony, opposite

Nalanda College, Vidyanagar, Hubballi. It is submitted by

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8427

HC-KAR

the petitioners that they are carrying on business of ice

cream, scoops, thick shakes and cakes, which is situated in

the prime location and many students, customers/families

and public visit the shop after having dinner and rely on

such establishments for a break for refreshment. Therefore,

they submit that running of the shop late night is very

much necessary. It is further submitted by the petitioners

that the police officials are insisting the petitioners to close

down the business at 10.00 p.m. and are threatening and

forcibly closing the shop within 10.00 p.m. Aggrieved by the

act of respondent No.3, which is illegal and arbitrary, the

petitioners have approached this Court for a direction

restraining the respondents not to interfere with the day-to-

day business of the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the issue in the present case is squarely covered by the

judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.

No.103753/2024 which reads as under:

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8427

HC-KAR

"3. The petitioner is conducting business in the name and style "Woop Natural" ice cream, juice and food items since 2024. The petitioner has obtained a licencee from Food Safety and Standards Authority of India. The petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court as the respondents are insisting the petitioner not to conduct his business beyond 10.00 p.m. The petitioner being a citizen having secured licence from the competent authority is entitled to carry out his business as enshrined under Article 19(g) of the Constitution of India.

4. The right to conduct business is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, which states that all citizens shall have the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. This right, however, is subject to reasonable restrictions that the state may impose in the interest of the general public.

5. In the present case, the petitioner has been conducting a legitimate business with all necessary licenses from the competent authorities. The Constitution ensures that a citizen cannot be arbitrarily deprived of their right to carry on a business, provided it is lawful and does not contravene public order, morality, or health.

6. The Court recognizes that while public safety is paramount, it cannot be used as a pretext to impose arbitrary restrictions on a business, especially when there are no statutory provisions supporting such restrictions. The state's responsibility to maintain law and order must be balanced against the individual's right to pursue a livelihood.

7. Thus, any restriction imposed must be reasonable, justified, and within the framework of the law. In this case, the respondents' insistence on early closure of the business lacks legal backing and does not constitute a

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8427

HC-KAR

reasonable restriction as envisaged under the Constitution. This Court deems it fit to protect petitioner's right to operate his business beyond the imposed hours, reaffirming the protection of fundamental rights against arbitrary administrative actions.

8. The learned HCGP, on query as to whether there are any restrictions in carrying the business more particularly regarding time stipulation, he would fairly submit that the law does not prohibit a businessman to carry his business beyond 10.00 p.m. However, he would point out that it is the centre place where the shop of the petition is located and it is a very sensitive place.

Therefore, to avoid any untoward incident, the respondents are insisting the businessmen in surrounding areas to close their shops before 11.30 p.m.

9. Having examined the records, this Court is not inclined to accede to the arguments advanced by the learned HCGP. There are no restrictions and embargo on a businessman with regard to time of business hours under any Act. The respondent officials under the garb of public safety and law and order cannot deprive a citizen from carrying out his business during late hours. Admittedly, the petitioner is running ice cream parlor. This Court is unable to understand as to how the running of ice-cream parlor would cause any threat to public. For the foregoing reasons, the court passes the following:

ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed.

ii. The respondent-police officials are hereby directed not to restrict the business hours of the petitioner in respect of "Woop Natural" ice cream, juice and food items Shop No.UG-9 Marvel Signet, Shirur Park, Main Road, Vidya Nagar, Hubballi to carry out business of ice cream, juice and food items only till 10.00 p.m. everyday.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8427

HC-KAR

iii. In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory application, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly."

The only difference between the two is the name of

the Brand - Ice Cream, before the Co-ordinate Bench it was

"Woop Natural Ice Cream" and in subject petition it is "V.R.

Enterprises i.e. Baskin & Robbins".

Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed.

ii. The respondents-Police Officials are hereby

directed not to restrict the business hours of the

petitioners in respect of "V.R. Enterprises i.e.

Baskin & Robbins, Akshay colony, Opp. Nalanda

College, Vidyanagar, Hubballi", to carry out

business of ice cream parlour, cakes, shakes

only till 10.00 p.m. everyday.

iii. Respondents are at liberty to initiate action if

any illegal/unlawful activities are carried out by

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8427

HC-KAR

the petitioners. Needless to mention, the same

shall be in accordance with law.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

Kmv CT-MCK