M/S. Blue Bottle Coffee Shop vs. The State Of Telangana And 4 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Blue Bottle Coffee Shop, operates a business that includes serving flavored hookah to customers above 18 years of age, with proof of age taken. They possess necessary trade licenses and have designated a separate smoking area as per Supreme Court directions. The petitioner alleges unlawful interference by the 5th respondent (Station House Officer, Madhapur Police Station) in their business operations, preventing them from serving hookah in the designated area. They contend this action is arbitrary and violates their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner asserts they hold all required licenses, including GST, and have paid advance tax, and that the continuous interference is causing irreparable damage and harassment.

Held

The Court held that while the police have the power to regulate smoking in public places as per Section 4 of the COTP Act, their interference must be balanced. The Court acknowledged that restaurants with trade licenses for restaurants or cafeterias sometimes convert into hookah parlors. It clarified that a separate smoking area provision under Section 4 does not grant an unrestricted right to run hookah parlors, and no other service should be allowed in the smoking area. If a restaurant is primarily operating as a hookah center, authorities have the right to cancel its license. The Court stated that police must conduct regular checks to ensure compliance with the Act and Rules, including displaying warnings. Citing Section 12 of the COTP Act, the Court affirmed the police's authority to inspect premises. However, it cautioned that police cannot harass individuals running hookah centers without statutory violations or illegal activities. The Court directed the petitioner to exclusively demarcate a separate area with appropriate enclosure for hookah smoking and not use any other part of the premises for this purpose. The Court also stated that restaurant owners with separate smoking/hookah areas should inform the Station House Officer for surveillance, and police should not harass them without following due procedure. Any high-handed action by police should be reported to higher authorities for inquiry and action. The Writ Petition was disposed of with these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Station House Officer (Respondent No. 5) has the authority to interfere with the petitioner's business of serving hookah in a designated smoking area, despite the petitioner possessing all necessary licenses and adhering to guidelines prescribed by the Apex Court and this Court? 2. Whether the actions of the respondents in interfering with the petitioner's business are unlawful, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argues that they have a valid license to operate a coffee shop and offer hookah in a separate smoking area, adhering to age restrictions and Supreme Court directives. They rely on Section 4 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (COTP Act) and previous High Court judgments, including one relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Narinder S. Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, which held that serving hookah to persons above 18 in a designated smoking zone is permissible. They claim the police interference is harassment and infringes their fundamental rights. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, represented by the GP for Home, argue that while Section 4 of the COTP Act allows for a separate smoking area, many restaurants convert their primary purpose into hookah parlors, allowing youngsters to smoke. They assert that the police have the power to inquire into such conversions and can even cancel licenses if restaurants are primarily used for hookah smoking without complying with the Act and Rules, including displaying statutory warnings. They cite Section 12 of the COTP Act, granting police powers to inspect and search premises if they suspect contravention of the Act, emphasizing the public health hazard posed by tobacco and the need for surveillance.