Cafe Blackyard vs. The State Of Telangana And 4 Others

Facts

Multiple petitioners, proprietors of coffee shops, filed writ petitions challenging the actions of various police authorities and the State of Telangana. The core of their grievance was the alleged arbitrary interference and banning of their business of serving flavored hookahs. The petitioners claimed their establishments were being disrupted without reference to any specific rule, law, or regulation. They asserted that their business operations, particularly the serving of flavored hookahs, were being conducted in compliance with the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade, Commerce, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (COTP Act). The petitions sought directions from the High Court to permit them to continue their business without hindrance, except as provided by law.

Held

The High Court disposed of all the writ petitions without costs. While the judgment does not detail specific findings on each petition or elaborate on the reasoning for the disposal, the operative part indicates a resolution of the challenges brought forth by the petitioners. The petitions were primarily seeking a declaration that the actions of the police authorities in banning and interfering with their business of serving flavored hookahs were illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, seeking directions to permit them to continue their business. The disposal suggests that the Court found a basis to resolve these matters, likely by directing the authorities to act strictly in accordance with the law and established regulations concerning the operation of such businesses, rather than outright permitting or prohibiting the activity without due process. The absence of detailed reasoning implies a procedural or administrative resolution rather than a deep dive into the legality of hookah service itself.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondent police authorities in banning and interfering with the business of serving flavored hookahs in coffee shops, without reference to any specific rule, law, or regulation, is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and contrary to the provisions of the COTP Act, 2003? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that their business of serving flavored hookahs was lawful under the COTP Act, 2003, and that the police authorities were acting beyond their jurisdiction and arbitrarily by interfering with their operations. They argued that such interference was unconstitutional and illegal. They sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to allow them to continue their business without hindrance, except as prescribed by law. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the revenue or State respondents. However, their actions, as challenged by the petitioners, suggest a stance of prohibiting or restricting the serving of hookahs.