Ms Be The Wolf, Hyd vs. Prl Secy, Home Dept., Hyd And 4 Ot

Facts

The petitioner, MS BE THE WOLF, operating a coffee shop, filed a writ petition challenging the respondents' action of banning and interfering with its business of serving flavoured hookahs. The petitioner contended that this interference was without reference to any rule, law, or regulation and was illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought a mandamus to allow it to carry on its business without hindrance, as per its Entertainment License. The respondents, including the State of Telangana and various police authorities, were involved in the action under challenge. The specific tax period and amount in dispute were not explicitly stated in the provided text for this particular writ petition.

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of a common order previously passed by the Court in W.P.No.8223 of 2013 and batch, dated 15.11.2023. This common order, which addressed a batch of writ petitions concerning hookah services, likely laid down specific conditions and guidelines for operating hookah establishments. The reasoning behind this disposal was that the issue raised in the present petition was squarely covered by the aforementioned common order. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in accordance with that prior judgment, implying that the petitioner would be bound by the conditions stipulated therein. No specific findings on the illegality or arbitrariness of the respondents' actions were detailed in this specific order, as it relied on a prior comprehensive judgment. The judgment expressly left undecided any issues not covered by the prior common order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in banning and interfering with the petitioner's business of serving flavoured hookahs is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (COTP Act, 2003)? The petitioner argued that the interference was without legal basis and violated its right to conduct business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, and that the COTP Act, 2003, did not prohibit serving hookah. The petitioner relied on previous High Court orders that allowed hookah services subject to compliance with rules and regulations. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader for Home, did not dispute the petitioner's submission that the issue was covered by a previous common order of the High Court.