Lunar Loft Cafe And Kitchens vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Lunar Loft Cafe and Kitchens, operates a coffee shop serving hookah. The petitioner claims to have obtained necessary permissions from the Government of India, Labour Department, and Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. The respondents, including the Commissioner of Police and Assistant Commissioner of Police, allegedly declared that all hookah centers must voluntarily shut down or face seizure of equipment and sealing of shops. The petitioner alleges that respondent authorities are entering their premises and threatening to seize materials and seal the shop. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to allow them to earmark a designated smoking area as per the COTPA Act and to permit their clientele to use it, and to continue serving flavored hookahs without hindrance.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before the respondent Police, seeking permission to serve hookah at their cafe. The Court directed the respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, taking into account the previous orders dated 08.12.2022 in W.P.No.15944 of 2022 and the common order dated 15.11.2023 in W.P.Nos.8223 of 2013. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and that the respondents must follow due procedure before initiating any action against the petitioner. The Court noted that while police have the power to regulate smoking in public places under the COTP Act, interference should only occur in cases of statutory violation or incidents contrary to law, and harassment should be avoided. The Court also referenced the requirement for a separate, enclosed area for smoking as per previous orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents, particularly the police authorities, are legally justified in threatening to seize equipment and seal the petitioner's hookah center without following due procedure, despite the petitioner possessing necessary licenses and operating in compliance with the COTPA Act, 2003? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argues that their business is legal and they have obtained necessary permissions. They rely on previous High Court orders (W.P.No.15944 of 2022 and W.P.Nos.8223 of 2013 and batch) which suggest that police should not harass hookah centers without following procedure and that a designated smoking area is permissible. They seek a direction to allow them to operate their business without interference. Revenue/State's contention: The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home prayed for an appropriate order from the Court. No specific arguments or reliance on provisions were recorded for the respondents.