M/S. Lavish Elysium Dine High vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

Multiple writ petitions were filed before the High Court of Telangana by proprietors of coffee shops and establishments. The petitioners, including Waheed Uddin Ahmed Ansari (Hitler's Den Coffee Shop), V. Vamshiram (BREVE "THE COFFEE LAB"), Momula Vinith (Tree House Care and Bistro), and Mr. Mahindra Tikaram (Resign Sky Bar), sought to challenge the actions of various police authorities and the State of Telangana. The core of their grievance was the alleged illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional interference and banning of their businesses, specifically concerning the serving of flavoured hookahs. The petitioners contended that their businesses were being disrupted without adherence to any rule, law, or regulation, and sought directions to permit them to continue their operations without hindrance, except as provided by law. The petitions were filed between 2013 and 2023.

Held

The High Court of Telangana disposed of all the writ petitions without costs. While the detailed reasoning for the disposal is not fully elaborated in the provided text, the operative part of the order indicates that the Court decided against granting the relief sought by the petitioners in its entirety as presented. The petitions were filed seeking to declare the actions of the respondents in banning and interfering with the business of serving flavoured hookahs as illegal and unconstitutional, and to direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue their business without hindrance, except under law. The disposal of the petitions suggests that the Court found no grounds to interfere with the actions of the authorities or that the petitioners' claims were not substantiated to the Court's satisfaction. No specific issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondent authorities in banning and interfering with the business of serving flavoured hookahs in coffee shops is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and contrary to the provisions of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade, Commerce, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (COTP Act)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that the actions of the respondents were without reference to any rule, law, or regulation. They contended that their businesses, which involved serving flavoured hookahs, were being interfered with illegally and arbitrarily. They relied on the COTP Act, asserting that their operations were in compliance with its provisions and sought to continue their business without hindrance, except as prescribed by law. They prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit them to run their establishments without any interference. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments presented by the revenue or State respondents.