Kunti Beerappa, Rr Dist vs. Prl Secy, Home Dept, Hyderabad And 3 Others

Facts

The petitioner, Kunti Beerappa, sought a writ of mandamus to prevent respondents from interfering with his business, 'Out of the Campus Coffee Shop,' which serves flavored hookahs. He contended that the interference was arbitrary and illegal, lacking reference to any rule, law, or regulation, and contrary to the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (COTP) Act. The petitioner sought to continue his business without hindrance, except as provided by law. The writ petition was filed in 2016. The High Court was presented with a submission that the issue was covered by a previous common order in W.P.No.8223 of 2013 and batch, dated November 15, 2023. The government pleader did not dispute this.

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of a common order previously passed in W.P.No.8223 of 2013 and batch, dated November 15, 2023. This implies that the principles and directions laid down in that earlier order would govern the present case. The earlier order, as indicated by the context of the common order, likely addressed the regulation of hookah parlors and the extent to which authorities could interfere with such businesses. The court's decision to dispose of the current petition based on the precedent suggests that the petitioner's business operations, if conducted in accordance with the conditions stipulated in the common order, should not face undue interference. The specific conditions from the common order, though not detailed in this excerpt for WP 43137/2016, would have been applied. No costs were awarded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioner's business of serving flavored hookahs is illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, particularly in light of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade Commerce Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (COTP Act)? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents' interference was without reference to any rule, law, or regulation and was contrary to the COTP Act. They sought a direction to permit the continuation of their business without hindrance, except as prescribed by law. Revenue/State's Contention: The respondents, represented by the 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. This implies they did not present a separate argument against the petitioner's claim in this specific instance, but rather accepted the precedent set by the earlier judgment.