Date Cafe And Lounge And Another vs. The State Of Telangana And 5 Others

Facts

The petitioners, Date Cafe and Lounge and its proprietor, sought a writ of mandamus to declare the respondents' interference with their business of serving flavored hookahs in a designated smoking area as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners possess trade licenses and have earmarked a separate smoking area as per Supreme Court directions and Section 4 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (COPT Act). They contend that the respondents, including the police, are interfering with their lawful business under the guise of enforcing amended Rule 43 of the Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places Rules, 2008, causing harassment and irreparable damage. The petitioners argue they hold all necessary licenses, including GST and trade licenses, and have complied with regulations, including age verification for hookah patrons.

Held

The Court held that while police have the power to regulate smoking in public places under Section 4 of the COPT Act, their interference must be limited to instances of statutory violation or activities contrary to law. The Court acknowledged that restaurants obtaining trade licenses for general purposes are sometimes converted into hookah parlours, and while Section 4 permits separate smoking areas for establishments with over 30 seats, this does not grant an unrestricted right to run hookah parlours. The Court emphasized that at the designated smoking area, no service other than smoking should be allowed, and if a restaurant is solely operating as a hookah centre, authorities have the right to cancel its license. The Court found that police have the authority to inspect business establishments to ensure compliance with the Act and Rules, and constant surveillance is necessary, especially given concerns about young people visiting hookah parlours and potential drug addiction. However, the Court cautioned against harassment and directed that police should only interfere when there is a statutory violation. The petitioners were directed to exclusively earmark a separate area with appropriate enclosure for smoking hookah, and no other part of the premises should be used for this purpose. Restaurant owners operating separate smoking/hookah areas must inform the Station House Officer for surveillance, but police should not harass them without following due procedure. The Court disposed of the writ petition, directing that any high-handed action by police should be brought to the notice of higher authorities for inquiry and action.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioners' business of serving flavored hookahs in a designated smoking area, under the guise of the amended Rule 43 of the Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places Rules, 2008, is illegal, arbitrary, without authority or jurisdiction, ultra vires the COPT Act, 2000, and unconstitutional, violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that they have obtained all necessary licenses, including trade licenses, and have complied with the directions of the Apex Court by providing a separate smoking area. They rely on Section 4 of the COPT Act, which permits designated smoking areas in establishments with over 30 seats. They cited previous High Court orders, fortified by the Supreme Court's decision in *Narinder S. Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai*, holding that police cannot harass businesses operating lawfully and that amendments to rules cannot prohibit consumption in designated smoking zones for persons above 18 years. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that while Section 4 of the COPT Act allows for designated smoking areas, many restaurants convert into hookah-only establishments, which warrants police intervention. They contended that if restaurants are primarily used for smoking hookahs rather than their intended purpose, licensing authorities and police have the power to inquire and even cancel licenses. They also raised concerns about the display of statutory warnings and the potential for youngsters to become drug addicts, asserting a duty for the police to monitor such activities under Section 12 of the COPT Act, which confers inspection powers.