Blue Hour Cafe vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioners, proprietors of coffee shops, sought to operate businesses serving flavoured hookahs. They approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of mandamus. The core of their grievance was the alleged illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional interference and banning of their business by various police authorities and the State. The petitioners contended that their operations were in compliance with the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade, Commerce, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (COTP Act) and relevant rules. They sought directions to permit them to continue serving flavoured hookahs without hindrance, except as provided by law. The petitions were filed between 2013 and 2023.

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petitions without costs. While the judgment does not detail specific findings on each issue or provide extensive reasoning, the operative direction indicates that the petitions were allowed in a manner that permits the continuation of business under specific conditions. The court's decision implies that the interference by the authorities was not justified without proper legal recourse. The reasoning likely hinges on the principle that any restriction or ban on a business must be in accordance with established law and due process, as stipulated by the COTP Act. The court directed the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue their business without hindrance, provided they adhere to the law. 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, without reference to rule, law, or regulations, is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and contrary to the provisions of the COTP Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that their business of serving flavoured hookahs, particularly those that are herbal, tobacco, nicotine, and tar-free, is permissible under the COTP Act. They contended that the police authorities were interfering with their business without any legal basis or adherence to established regulations. They relied on the COTP Act to assert their right to conduct business lawfully. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondents (State and police authorities).