M/S.K.Prestigious Lounge Hookah And Cafe vs. The State Of Telangana And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. K. Prestigious Lounge Hookah and Cafe, operates a restaurant and coffee shop business, including serving flavored hookahs to customers for approximately seven years. The petitioner possesses valid trade licenses from GHMC, GST registration, and other necessary permits. The petitioner claims to have designated a separate smoking zone as per Supreme Court directions and complies with the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COTP Act). The respondents, including the Commissioner of Police and Station House Officer, allegedly interfered with the petitioner's business by issuing press statements directing voluntary shutdown of hookah centers and by entering the premises, threatening seizure of equipment and sealing of the shop, without prior notice or hearing. The petitioner contends this action is illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional.

Held

The Court held that police authorities have the power to regulate smoking in public places as per Sections 4 and 12 of the COTP Act, and this authority supersedes trade licenses from GHMC for regulatory purposes. The Court acknowledged the Act's objective of protecting public health and noted that restaurants converting into hookah parlors primarily for smoking, rather than their licensed purpose, could lead to license cancellation. The Court affirmed the police's right to inspect business establishments to ensure compliance with the Act and Rules, especially given concerns about drug addiction among youth visiting hookah parlors. However, the Court cautioned that police interference should only occur in cases of statutory violation or illegal activities, and they should not harass businesses under the guise of regulation. The petitioner was 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 with separate smoking areas must inform the Station House Officer for surveillance. The Court disposed of the writ petition, stating that police can inspect premises but should not harass individuals without following due procedure, and any high-handed action should be reported to higher authorities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the police authorities in banning and interfering with the petitioner's business of serving flavored hookahs, without reference to rule, law, or regulations, is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, and contrary to the provisions of the COTP Act? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they possess all required licenses, including GST, Sales Tax, Food, and Trade licenses, and have complied with the COTP Act by providing a separate smoking zone as mandated by the Supreme Court in Narinder S. Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. They contended that police interference, without statutory violation, amounts to harassment and infringement of fundamental rights. They relied on previous High Court orders stating police should not harass lawful businesses. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents argued that while the proviso to Section 4 of the COTP Act allows for designated smoking areas, many restaurants convert their premises into hookah-only centers, particularly allowing youngsters to smoke. They asserted that if restaurants are primarily used for hookah smoking, licensing authorities and police have the power to inquire and even cancel licenses. They also highlighted concerns about school and college-going children visiting hookah parlors and becoming drug addicts, necessitating police monitoring for public interest.