Mr. Md Sharif vs. The State Of Telangana And 5 Others

Facts

The Petitioner, Mr. M/r- tt/D Sharif, operates several establishments including "Hyderabad Times Cafe" and "Park View Cafe", serving food and hookah. He claims to have obtained all necessary trade licenses, including GST, Sales Tax, Food, and Labour licenses. The Petitioner states he began serving tobacco-free, nicotine-free, and tar-free hookah in August 2019. Subsequently, the police allegedly began harassing him, leading him to close his outlets in November 2019. He obtained a report from Bombay Forensic Laboratory in January 2020, confirming his hookah contents were tobacco-free. The Petitioner filed a representation on April 22, 2021, to the respondents seeking consideration of his business serving tobacco-free hookah and requesting no coercive action. The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in not considering his representation illegal and to direct them to examine the legislation's applicability to tobacco-free products and refrain from coercive action.

Held

The Court held that while the respondent police have the power under Section 4 and 12 of the Act to enter and conduct inspections to verify compliance with rules and guidelines, they cannot interfere with the Petitioner's business without any basis. The Court noted that only a competent officer, as per the Act, can initiate action or conduct inspections. The Petitioner's primary prayer was for the consideration of his representation dated April 22, 2021, and a consequential direction to examine the legislation's applicability to tobacco-free products and refrain from coercive action. The Court disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the respondents to consider the Petitioner's representation within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order, in accordance with the provisions of the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003. Regarding the consequential relief of not taking coercive steps, the respondents were directed to act in accordance with law and the directions issued by the Court in several writ petitions, which generally permit police to regulate such businesses and conduct inspections for compliance.

Key Issues

1. Whether the inaction of the respondent police authorities in not considering the Petitioner's representation dated April 22, 2021, is illegal, and consequently, whether the respondents should be directed to examine the legislation and its non-application to tobacco-free products, and issue necessary directions to prevent coercive action against the Petitioner's establishments serving tobacco-free hookah? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that the respondent police were interfering with his lawful business of serving tobacco-free hookah without any material to show a violation of guidelines prescribed by the Apex Court in *Narinder S. Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai* or the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003. He contended that such interference infringes his fundamental rights and causes irreparable damage. He also relied on previous High Court orders stating that police should not harass business owners when their business is lawful and legal, citing a coordinate bench's reliance on the *Narinder S. Chadha* case. The Petitioner asserted he holds all required licenses and has paid advance tax. Respondents' Arguments: The learned Government Pleader for Home argued that while Section 4 of the Act allows for designated smoking areas, many restaurants convert their nature into hookah-only places, allowing youngsters to smoke hookah. He submitted that these centers have become hangouts for school and college-going children, exposing them to smoking and endangering their health, and potentially leading to drug addiction. He stated it is the police's duty to curb illegal activities and that they have the liberty to regulate businesses serving flavored hookahs, including conducting inspections to ensure compliance with existing and future guidelines. He cited Section 76 of the City Police Act and previous High Court orders allowing police to monitor such activities in the interest of public health.