A Birajdar vs. State Of Tg,Prl.Scy,Home,Hyd,And 3

Facts

The petitioner, operating 'Shooterz Snooker And Coffee Lounge', challenged the respondents' interference with their business of serving flavoured hookahs. The petitioner contended that their business was being disrupted without reference to law, and that they were complying with the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade Commerce Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (COTP Act). The petitioner sought a direction to permit them to continue their business without hindrance, except as provided by law. The respondents, including the State of Telangana and GHMC, argued that the petitioners were seeking to operate hookah parlours beyond designated areas and without proper authorization. The matter was consolidated with several other writ petitions raising similar issues.

Held

The Court held that while the COTP Act, 2003, does not impose a general prohibition on serving hookah, the operation of hookah centres requires adherence to specific regulations and permissions. The Court noted that 'public place' as defined under the COTP Act includes amusement centres and restaurants. Furthermore, the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli, confers powers on the Commissioner of Police to issue rules and regulations for public order and to specify conditions for obtaining licenses and permits for amusement centres/restaurants. Consequently, the Court directed that to establish hookah centres, petitioners must obtain a license from the Municipal Corporation under Section 521(1)(b) of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, and necessary permission from the concerned authority under the provisions of the City Police Act. Hookah centres are prohibited from serving tobacco products to persons below eighteen years, and pictorial health warnings must be displayed. The respondents-police are at liberty to supervise and inspect these centres for any violation of rules and regulations under the City Police Act or the COTP Act, and take appropriate action if violations occur. Subject to fulfilling these conditions, the respondents-police are directed not to interfere with the business activity of the petitioners. The Court expressly left undecided the extent of the police's power to seize hookah centres without prior judicial determination of violation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioner's business of serving flavoured hookahs is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and contrary to the provisions of the COTP Act, 2003, thereby violating Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? - Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that there is no general ban on selling tobacco products and that their business operations are in compliance with the COTP Act, 2003. They contended that the interference by the police constitutes a violation of their fundamental right to practice a trade or profession. They relied on previous High Court orders that allowed hookah service subject to compliance with rules and regulations. - Revenue/State's argument: The respondents argued that the petitioners were seeking to operate hookah parlours beyond areas designated by statute and that detailed information about these establishments was missing. They also raised concerns about serving hookahs in areas not permitted by law.