Mr. Deorattey Lekhraj Yadav vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Mr. Deorattey Lekhraj Yadav, operates restaurants under the name 'Hipes and Pipes' in Hyderabad. He claims to serve herbal, tobacco-free, nicotine-free, and tar-free hookah, having obtained all necessary trade licenses, including GST and Sales Tax. The petitioner alleges that police authorities are frequently raiding his establishments, seizing property, and filing criminal cases under Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code, causing harassment and irreparable damage to his business. He contends that these actions are taken under the pretext of regulation and check-ups, despite his business operating lawfully and in compliance with court directions for designated smoking areas. The petitioner asserts that his hookah products do not contain tobacco or nicotine, and the police actions are in contravention of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003.

Held

The Court acknowledged that the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COTP Act) does not explicitly contemplate a license for hookah parlours. However, it emphasized that restaurants converting into hookah parlours must adhere to the provisions of the Act. The Court noted that Section 4 of the Act requires a separate place for smoking, and at such places, no other service should be allowed. The Court found that police authorities have a right to conduct checks to ensure compliance with the Act and Rules, including the display of statutory warnings. It also pointed out that Section 12 of the COTP Act specifies the ranks of officers authorized to inspect premises. The Court ruled that police cannot directly interfere with the business unless there is a statutory violation or illegal activities are occurring. It directed the petitioner to earmark a separate area with appropriate enclosure for smoking hookah and to inform the Station House Officer (SHO) about the designated area. The Court also stated that police should not harass individuals running hookah centres without following due procedure and that any high-handed action by police officers should be brought to the notice of higher authorities for inquiry and appropriate action. The Court disposed of the writ petition with these directions, emphasizing a balance between regulation and preventing harassment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the police authorities are justified in taking coercive action against the petitioner's establishments for serving herbal, tobacco-free, nicotine-free, and tar-free hookah, and if so, under which legal provisions? 2. Whether the actions of the respondent police, including raids, seizures, and filing of criminal cases under Section 328 IPC, are in contravention of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003, and established judicial precedents? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that his business serves only non-alcoholic beverages and herbal hookah, which does not contain tobacco or nicotine. He contended that the police are interfering with his lawful business activities, seizing property, and filing non-bailable cases without proper justification. He relied on Supreme Court and High Court judgments, including *Narinder S. Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai*, stating that police should not harass businesses operating lawfully. He also highlighted that he possesses all required licenses and has paid advance tax. The petitioner argued that the police actions infringe upon his fundamental rights and are illegal and improper. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents, represented by the Government Pleader for Home, argued that restaurants are converting into hookah parlours, and while Section 4 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003, mandates separate smoking areas, this does not grant a right to run hookah parlours without adhering to regulations. They contended that at smoking places, no other service should be allowed, and if a restaurant is solely operating as a hookah centre, authorities have the right to cancel licenses. The police argued for constant checks to ensure compliance with the Act and Rules, including displaying statutory warnings. They also raised concerns about customers being introduced to narcotic drugs under the guise of hookah parlours, necessitating surveillance.