M/S. Blue Bottle Coffee Sho vs. The State Of Telangana
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Blue Bottle Coffee Shop, a partnership firm, filed a writ petition challenging the action of the Cyberabad Police (respondent Nos. 3 to 5). The petitioner alleges that on April 27, 2026, police officials trespassed into their establishment, evicted customers, and locked the premises without prior notice or a show cause notice. The police vaguely stated that 'hookah is illegal.' The petitioner claims to have obtained all necessary licenses, including a trade license from GHMC, fire license, and GST registration, and that a separate smoke area for hookah was earmarked following a Supreme Court direction. The keys were returned on May 1, 2026, but the petitioner was threatened not to operate the hookah business. The petitioner had submitted an application for permission to conduct hookah business on May 2, 2026, which remained unaddressed.
Held
The Court, without delving into the merits of the case, acknowledged that the petitioner had submitted an application dated May 2, 2026, seeking permission to run a hookah business, and that this application had been acknowledged by the respondent authorities. Given this, the Court deemed it appropriate to direct Respondent No. 3 (Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad) to examine the petitioner's application. The Court ordered that appropriate orders be passed strictly in accordance with the law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The Court explicitly stated that it was not going into the merits and demerits of the case. The ratio decidendi is that when a specific application for permission is pending with the authority, and the authority has not yet considered it, the Court may direct the authority to consider and decide the application in accordance with law, without adjudicating the underlying dispute.
Key Issues
1. Whether the action of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in locking/sealing the petitioner's establishment and interfering with its business operations was illegal, arbitrary, without authority of law, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the principles of natural justice? The petitioner argued that their business was lawful, supported by various licenses, and that the police action was high-handed, lacking due process, and based on a generalized, unsubstantiated claim that hookah is illegal. They relied on the Supreme Court's direction regarding designated smoking areas. The revenue (respondents) contended that the petitioner could not conduct any business, specifically hookah, without prior permission from Respondent No. 3 (Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad). They argued that permitting such business without permission would be contrary to established law and the conditions prescribed by Respondent No. 3.
Sections Cited
Article 14, Article 19(1)(g), Article 21
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.1621O of 2o26 Date: 0,6.05.2026 Between: M/s. Blue Bottle Coffee Shop ..Petitioner And The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others Respondents ORDER This Writ Petition is filed seeking the foilowing relief:- ".-.to tssue a Wi; Order or direction, more particularlA one in the nature of a Writ of Mondamus declaing the action of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in interfenng uith the petitioners la ufut business operations and illegotlg locking/ sealing the pettttoners establishment under the name and style of M/ s Blue Bottte Colfee Shnp situated at Plot No.B2 and 83, Sy.No. 4Q Guttala Begumpet, Kotruri Hills, Madhapur, Hgderabad, as illegat, arbitrary, uithout authoritg of lau, uiolatiue of Articles la, 19(1)(9) and 21 of the Constitution of India, contrary to principles of natural iustice and pass-. ." r
2
Heard Ms. ttr.J. Vrl ayala,xmi, learnecl counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri M.Srinivas, learnr:d Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and perused thc record. 3. [.earncd cottnsel appearing for the petrtiotrer would submit that the petitioner is running a coffee sl-rop in the name and style of M/ s. Blue Bottte Coffee Shop legallv by obraining the trade liccnce issued by the GHMC uide License No.1001-428-003 1, dated 16.42.2025, lirod liccnse, labour license, GST, fire license, music liccnse , required building permit (LOC, LRF), NOC from the Medical Oflicer. Pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.10836 of 2014 arising out of SLI) (Civil) No.30832 of 201I in the roatter of Narind.er S.Chad.ha as, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai a separate smoke area has bccn carmarked in the coffee shop which includes smoking of Hookah. 4. [t is submi!.ed that on 27.04.2026 at about 1:00 p.M, the Sub-lnspector of Pclice, Madhapur Police Station, along with other officials have trespassed into the coffee shop and evicted the customers and locked the premises and took the keys with them, without an1.' prior notice and intimation. When the petitioner qucstionecl about the high handed action, the said police officers F
w 3 vaguely answered that they were acting under the instructions of respondent No.3 and further made a generaliznd statement that 'irookah is illegal'without citing any statutory provision or violation of any lawful order. The respondents have neither issued any show cause notice nor provided any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before initiating such action. The action of the respondents has caused grave prejudice, irreparable loss and hardship to the petitioner, including financial loss, reputational damage in the society and disruption of lawful business activities. On repeated visits to the office of respondent no.4 and pleading to return the keys to run the business, the keys were returned on Ol .05.2026, but threatened not to run the hookah. business without application of mind. Hence, the present writ petition.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submits that the petitioner cannot conduct any business without obtaining prior permission from respondent No.
It is further submitted that permitting the petitioner to run a hookah centre without such permission would be contrary to the conditions prescribed by respondent No.3 and against the. established position of law.
I ii 4
He lurther sul;mits that, if the petitioner comes forward with an application seeking permission to conduct hookah business, respondent No.3 shall examine the same and pass apltropriate orders in accordar cc rvith law.
At this juncturc, learned counsel appeaiing for the petitioner sutrrnitted that the pctitioner had alreadl' submitred an application clatcd O2.O5.2026 bcaring Application No.020526CP7l seeking permission to con(fuct rhe hookah business, bur the respondent- authorities have nOt yet considered or disposed of the said applrcation.
In tl-rc light tf tire aforesaid facts and circumstances of the casc and upon perusal of the rnaterial available on repord, it is an admrtted fact that rhc petitioner has submitterl an application seeking permrssion to rur-t a hookah business in his restaurant, for which an acknou,leCgment has also been issued b1.the respondent- authorities. Ur-rder these circumstances, this Court, without going into thc mcrits anrl dcmerits ol the case, deems it appropriate to dircct respondent No.3 to examine the case of the petitioner in pursuance o[ the application dated 02.O5.2026 bearing Application No.020526CP7 i : nrJ pass appropriate orders, strictly in .._ accordancc u,irh lau,, as_ cxpeditiously as possible, preferablv within
To, 5 a period oi four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, i[ any, shall stand closed P.C. SULEKHA DEVi ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //// SECTION OFFICER The Principal Secretary of Home, D'R B R- Ambedkar Telangana State Secretariat The Director General of Police, Hyderabad City Police Commissionerate The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Gachibowli The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madhapur Zone' Cyberabad Commissioner office, Gachibowli. The Station House Officer, Madhapur Police Station' Hyderabad' One CC to DR.J.VIJAYALAXMI, Advocate [OPUC] TwoCCstoGPFoRHOME,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana,at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD CoPies 6 Z. 4 5 t) 7 o PMK BS k
\ { HIGH COURT DATED: 06l05l2OZG ORDER WP.No.16210 ot 2026 ( + -J HE ST4 t'tAY 2026 1 t .),.V, \.. c) .\ a * ltlsperct,r-f) DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \\ coPie/L Vk G{+s , 1 Z
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.