The High Court · 2025

Order

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following reliet "....1o rssue a Wit, Order or Direction more parttcularly one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus declaing the action of the respondents more pafiicularlg the respondenl Nos.5 and 6 herein interfeing utith the Restaurant and Coffee Shop Business of the petitioner ntnning under the name and stAle as THD NAWABS CA|.-D in H. No. 2 253, Sai Nagar Old, Hafeezpeet, Serilingampally, RcLnqrt Reddy in seruing of JTauored Hookahs without their being any contrauention of COTP Act, 20O3 tLithout rekrence to any ru.le regulations or lanu bg the Respondents as iltegal, arbitrary and in uiolatiue of Afticles 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India aparl Jrom being uiolation of Pinciples of Natural Justice and consequently direct the respondents police to pennit the petitioner to continue his business of seruing flauored Hookahs in his cctfe shop uithout ang hindrance or restictions in the interest of justice.... "

2. Considered Lhe submissions of the learned counscl for the respective parties and perused the record

3. It is stated the peLitioner herein is a cafe running under the name and style of 'The Nawabs Cafe'at H.No.2-253, Sai Nagar Old, Hafeezpeet, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy, after obtaining all the necessary permissions from the respondent authorities under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2OO3 (for short ActJ. The grievance of the petitioner is that without issuing any notice 0I 2 and without registration of any crime against it, the respondent authorities are interfering with its business activitics alleging that it is selling the food products, which are prohibited under law.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is running its business activities in violation of the Act and without obtaining necessary permissions from the respondent authorities. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that on similar / circumstances, this Court has disposed of batch of writ petitions vide W.P.No.8223 of 2Ol3 and batch, dated 15- 11.2023.

5. ln view ol the said submissions, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order, dated 22.07 .2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.8223 of 20 13 and batch, dated 1 5. 1 I -2023. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petilions pending, if any, shall stand closed. \ /TTRUE COPY// SD/. P.Ch . NAGABHUSHAMBA TANT REGISTRAR \ \ ECTION OFFICER To,

2. 3 4 The Prl Secretary, Home Department Secretariat Buildings' Hyderabad The Director General of Police DGP Office ' The Commissioner of Police' Cyberabad' Gachibowli Lakdikapul' Hyderabad 500 004 H"-?,:s:1y,.:rui#:"3T""{'3iIfl "T'tvberabadZone'cvberabad *: \

5. The Station House Officer (Special Operation Team) SOT, Miyapur police Station, IVliyapur, Cyberabdd '

6. The Station House Officer, (Special Operation Team) SOT, Narsing police Station, Narsing, Cyberabad

7. One CC to SRt. p N ARUN KUMAR Advocate tOpUCl 8. Two CCs to Gp FOR HOME,High Court for the State of Tetangana. [OUT] 9. Two CD Cooies KKS (Alonq with the coDV of the order in w.p.No. 8223 of 2013 and batch, dated 15.11.20231 GJP I '.!'-$:: {- *f,E'

ORDER WP.No.2614 of 2025 t -) o,J 1HE Sr4 r4- o 2 3 APl] 20fr + ,. \' |, .-/ -r' ,- DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS a I

1.\ r5 -?. - :lf 1i -ln ;;3l ,t: USB THE HONO LE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BIIASKAR REDDY 1VRIT PETITIO 2 15 46505 2 375a 3744 4L sL47 5149 651 os.8223 2013 3427 2015 4s742 2022 lt27 1809 1935 2729 2735 2954 3124 4297 4304 4330 4562 4680 5084 5097 6s23 7tag 7297 74a5 75o4 7949 7963 alLT 4226 a246 826a 8498 8509 8564 9558 rot22 to24t 1o425 77s 10814 11()08 l12L3 11463 L2360 L24A2 14129 1s134 15706 16172 16839 179t7 18351 taa29 19005 51 t9742 222aA 22292 2230s 2373A 23A92 24696 25044 25836 26172 27223 27761 and 30952 of 2o23 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in all these Writ petitions is intrinsically interconnected, they are being taken up and heard together and disposbd of by this common order. .:

2. As the respondents have filed consolidated counter affidavit in Writ Petition No.46505 of 2022, the said Writ Petition is taken up as a leading case. ,

3. W.P.No.46505 of 2022 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief "to p(:ss an order, direction or a Wnt particularlg in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to allou the petitioner herein to serue hookah in hts establishment freelA as long as he follows the 'Clgarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Aduertisement and Regulation of Trade Commerce Supplg and Distibution) Act, 2O03 and rules and *at the petittoner be allou-ted to serue hookah in open <treas <tnd smoking zones and to issue necessarg directtons to the effect that no coerctue actton of ang nqture ought to be initiated against the petitioner or his establishment namety "Resign Sky Bar" located in Madhapur." t l ! 2

4. The case of the petitioner is that he is running the restaurant under the name and style 'Resign Sky Bar' since many years and also obtained trade license from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. It is further case of the petitioner that owners of certarn restaurants had filed Writ Petition No-32O2 of 2Ol4 and batch on the hle of this Court, wherein this ,Court vide common order dated 27 .Ol .2017 , allowed the petitioners therein to serve Hookah as long as they follow rules and regulations and also the conditions stipulated therein like having CCTV cameras and not serving to minors etc.,. It is further case of the petitioner that even though the restaurant owners are following the rules ancl regulations as prescribed under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of 'I'rade Commerce Supply and Distribution) Act, 2OO3 (for short "COTP Act, 2003"), the task force police under the control of respondent No.2 are visiting thc businessplaceandfoistingfalsecaseswithamalalrdeintentionto force the owners of the business establishments to shut down the hookah sales and usage_ It is further case of the petitioner that the owners of the restaurants again approached this court and filed writ Petition W.P.Nos.2206O and' 23213 of 2017 and this Court vide common order dated O2.O8.2O17 disposed of the said Writ Petitions and ordered that the restaurant owners are free to run their 3 restaurants as per hrles and regulations and that if police takes any steps, the petitioners therein were given liberty to approach the Director General of Police/ Commissioner of Police and lodge complaint regarding illegai interference of officers. It is further case of the petitioner that even though restaurant owners are running hookah Centres strictly inconformity with the directions issued by : this Court, the respondents-police are raiding the hookah Centres and registering false cases under Sections 188, 27O, 272 and 328 IPC. It is further case of petitioner that cases under aforesaid Sections cannot be filed against the restaurant owners if they serve hookah to their customers and that there is no general ban on selling tobacco and tobacco products. It is further case of the petitioners that owners of the restaurants filed Criminal Petitions vide Crl.P.No.5619 of 2O2O and batch on the file of this Court seeking to quash the proceedings in respective Crimes/Calendar Cases/ Sessions Cases registered for the offences under Sections 188, 269, 27O, 272, 273, 328, 336 & 420 read with 34, 149, 5r1 of IPC; Sections 3(m), 20(21, 2L(11, 21(2l., 22,7(3) and 7(5) of the COTP Act, 2003 and Sections 58 and 59(i) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (for short 'FSS Act'). This Court vide common order dated

1.0.06.2022, allowed the said Criminal Petitions, quashing the proceedings in the respective Crimes/Calendar Cases/Sessions 4 Cases in terms of the common order, dated O5.O7.2O21 pzr.ssed in Mohd. Jameel Ahmed us. State o.f Telanganar. It is further case of the petitioners that since there is no prohibition under COTP Act, 2003 to serwe hookah, interference by the respondents police amounts to violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also the provisions of COTP Act, 2003.

5. A consolidated counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 5 in W.P.No.4 6505 /2022, wherein inter aliait t's statecl that the petitioners are seeking to give a direction to permit running of "Hookah Parlour" and scrving of Hookah in Restaurants beyond the areas designatcd by the statute. It is further stated that the details of those Hookah Centres/Hookah Parlours / I{ ookah Bars are conspi.cuously missing. The petitioners without mentioning that they are complying with various statutory provisions of COTP Act, 2003, have simply averred that they are serving hookah in their prcmises. lt is further stated that no statute or regulat ion refers to Hookah Centres/Hookah Parlours/Hookah bars. In the counter aflidavit, the respondents have referred various constitutional provisions rclating to health and right to life. It is stated by the respondents that as per Article 2 1 of the Constitution of India, it is the responsibility of the Government to direct its policy towards ' zo22 crir,t 642 5 securing tender age children and give them opportunities to develop in a healthy mariner. It is further stated that World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) and its guidelines provide the foundation for countries to implement and manage tobacco control. The WHO has introduced MPOWER measures which correspond to one or more articles of the Framework Convention, to assist in reducing the demand for tobacco products at country-level. It is further stated that hookahs are smoked in a closed cabins or rooms and persons who smoke, sit for hours together and inhale much more smoke than those who smoke cigarette for 3 to 4 minutes. It is further stated that Hookahs sometimes called fuater pipes'and they are used to smoke specially made tobacco that is available in a variety of flavors, such as apple, mint, cherry, chocolate, coconut, licorice, cappuccino, and watermelon. It is further stated that Hookah smoking is typically practiced in groups, with the same mouthpiece passed from person to person. Water pipe smoking delivers the addictive drug nicotine and it is as toxic as cigarette smoke and due to the mode of smoking including frequency of puffing, depth of inhalation, and length of the smoking session, hooka-h smokers may absorb higher concentration of the toxins found in cigarette smoke. lt is further'stated that a typical one hour long hookah smoking session involves inhaling 100- 6 2O0 times the volume of smoke inhaled from a single cigarette. Hookah smokers arc at risk for the same kinds of diseases that are caused by cigarette smoking, including oral ca-rrcer, lung cancer, stomach cancer, cancer of the esophagus, reduced lung function, and decreased fertility. Hookah smoking is NOT a safe alternative to smoking cigarettes. The charcoal used to heat tobacco in the hookah increases the health risks. Even after it has passed through water, the smoke produced by a hookah contains high ievel of toxic compounds, inciuding carbon monoxide, heavy metals, and cancer causing chemicals and thus prayed to dismiss the writ petitions.

6. Heard both sides and perused the record.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents police are frequently interfering with the petitioner's business activity of serving hookah in the designated smoking area in the restaurant and preventing the petitioner frorn doing trade. It is further submitted that the action of the respondents in asking the petitioner to stop offering hookah in the absence of any material to show that the business is in violation of the guidelines prescribed by the Apex Court in Narinder S. Chadha tt. Mufticipal Corporation of Greater Mumboi2 and the COTP Act, 2O03, amounts to ' 1zo u; rs scc oso 7 infringement of fundamental rights and the same is illegal and improper. Learned counsel submits that continuous interference of the respondents is causing irreparable damage and harassment to the petitioner and to the reputation of business. Learned counsel further submitted that in catena of cases, this Court has clearly in unambiguous terms stated that police under the guise of implementing the regulation shail not resort to cause inconvenience or any harassment to the customer/person present there or to the owner of the restaurant, when the business is lawful and legal, there cannot be any prohibition. It is further submitted that the petitioner is holding all the required licenses such as GST, Sales Tax, Food, Trade, Labour etc., and also paid advance tax. It is further submitted that the respondents are not having power to interfere with the petitioner's business activity as long as he follows the guidelines issued by the Hon'lcle Supreme Court in Narinder S Chadha's case (supra) and also the provisions of COTP Act and the regulations made thereunder. Thus the learned counsel prayed this Court to allow the writ petitions as prayed for.

8. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents opposed the writ petition and relied upon the provisions of Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, I 1, 13, 15, 77 and 18 of COTP Act, 2OO3. He argued that COTP Act, 2003 has 8 not only included cigarettes like Cigarettes (Regulations of Production, Supply ancl Distribution) Act, 1975 but also brought all other forms of tobacco products (both smoking and smokeless); Prohibition of smol<rng in public places; Imposing natronwide public smoking ban and specihed particular piaces as non-smoking zones; Ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship; Ban on sale to minors and in an arca within radius of 100 yards of any educationai institution; I)isplaying of pictorial health-warning labels; That the specilred health warnings must occupy at least 4do/o of the principa.l display area on the front panel of the pockets, and shall be rotated evcry 12 months; that the law also prohibited more than two languages from being used on the pack to ensure that specified warning is legible and prominent. It ls further submitted that with effect from 2lrd October, 2012, t!:re Government began screening two anti-tobacco :rdvertisements in movie theatres and television. Nicotine and Tar contents of all tobacco products must be clearly displayed on the packs. Producers of tobacco products must ensure that these harmful contents are within the maximum permissible Iimits as prcscribcd by the ru1es. The learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that Rule 4 of the Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places Rules, 2O08 (for short "Rules, 2OO8") mandates that the owner, proprietor, manager, supervisor or in-charge of the affairs 9 of a hotel having thirty or more rooms or restaurant having seating capacity of thirty persons or more and the manager of the airport may provide for a smoking area or space as dehned in rule 2(e). As per Rule 4(3), no service shall be allowed in any smoking area or space provided for smoking. Therefore, no ash trays, lighters, matches or other things to facilitate srnoking are to be provided in a public place as per Rule 3 (c) of the Rules , 2OO8. It is further submitted that as per Rule + (+l(a\, smoking in public places is completely banned and for a person visiting a Restaurant or a Hotel satisfying the statutory requirement, the Hotel or Restaurant may designate a separate area or space as per the definition of smoking area in Rule 2(e) ald such a person visiting the hotel or a Restaurant iS free to smoke in the designated smoking area. The Restaurant or the Hotel will not provide any smoking apparatus or anything that aids smoking. it is further submitted that Rule 3 (t)(c) specihcally places a bar on the owner, proprietor, manager, supervisor or incharge of the affairs of public place to ensure that no ashtrays, matches, lighters or other things designed to facilitate smoking are provided in the public place, therefore the necessary corollary that would follow is that, there cannot be active participation of the persons incharge of managing a restamrant or a hotel to provide smoking aids. As such smoking of hookah cannot be aided by the 10 restaurant or a hotel merely since it has a smoking room attached to it. It is further submitted that what cannot be permitted in the public area of a restaurant cannot be stretched to mean that it can be provided in the smoking area. It is further submitted that the Trade licences obtained by the petitioners from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, does not disclose that they have been issued after a declaration that they are running "Hookah Centres"- The learned Special Government Pieader relied upon Section 521 of GHMC Act, which specifically states that no person shall without licence keep, in or upon any premises, for sale or for other than domestic use, any article specihed rn Part III of Schedule P. It is further submitted that Charcoal, which is used to facilitate the smoking of the Hookah is an Article mentioned in Part III of Schedule P. The use of charcoal for thc purpose of Hookah smoking is very dangerous and can pose a risk of fire accidents apart from creating a nuisance to the persons who may vistt the Restaurant or Hotel. It is further submitted that the licences of the petitioners do not disclose that they have hled declaration that they intended to use Trade Licences to permit Hookah smoking. There is no occasion for the Municipal authorities to consider this aspect. The learned Special Government Pleader further submrtted that even though earlier batch of cases have been disposed of by this Court, the issues raised l1 in these writ petitions are not specifically adverted and this Court has not taken into consideration that Hookah is also a Tobacco product and the provisions of COTP Act, 2003 apply. It is further submitted that prayer sought in these writ petitions is in the nature of restraining the authorities from inspecting the premises where Hookah centres are being run and in fact as per the provisions of Hyderabad City Poiice Act, 1345 Fasli, the police has power to inspect any public place for the offences committed under the said Act, i.e, exposing of body in indecent manner, possession of suspected articles, indecent acts in streets etc., committing nuisance in or near public place. It is further submitted that since the observations made in the earlier batch of cases does not specifically restrain or declare the powers exercised by the police officers as illegal, the police officers are entitled to supervise and inspect, seize and seal the petitioners establishments if any violation is being found under Section 12 of COTP Act. Since the orders passed in the earlier wnt petitions, does not give blanket protection or recognizes the independent existence of "Hookah Centres", the judgments relied upon by the petitioners are not helpful to the case of the petitioners and therefore, the learned Special Government Pleader prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. t2

9. It is apt and appropriate to extract some of the relevant provisions of COTP Act, 20O3, which are as follows: '3. Definitions. In this Act, un/e-ss the contert othenise requires, (a) "aduerliscment" includes ang uisible representation by utag of notice, circular, labcl, uropper or other document and also inctudes ang qnnoLtncetnetll made orallg or bg any means of producing or traftsmitting light, sound, smoke or gas; (b) "ctgarette" tnchtdes,' (i) anA roll of tobacco wrapped in paper or in ang other substqnce not containing tobacco, (ii) ang rolt of bbacco u.trapped in ang substance containing tobacco, which, by reason of its qppearance, the tApe of tobacco used in the fLter, or its packagling ancl labelling is likelg to be ofJered to, or purchased bg, consumcr.s as cigareLtc, but does not inclucle beedi, cheroot and cigar; (c) "dtstnbution" includes dtstributon bA LUaa oJ samples, u.thetlLer free or otheru)ise. (d) "export', Lutth its grammotical uariatnns and cognate erl)ressrons, neans takng oul of India to o pldce outside India; (e) 'forcign lunguage r,teo'ns Q language which is neither un Indian language nor the English tonguage; A "imporl", with its grommatical uaiations and cognqte exirre-ssions, means bnngorg trtto lrtdia from a ptQce outside India; (g) "Indian language" means a language specified in the Eighth Schedule 10 the Constitution, and rncludes anA dioLect of such language; (h) "tabet" nlee.ns ang u-fitten, marked, stomped, printed or graphic matter, affwed to, or appeaing upon, ang pockage; . (i) "package" includes a wrapper, box, cqrton, tin or other contqiner; 0 "prescribed" means prescibed by rules made under this Act; (k) "production", with its grammatical uqiations and cognate expressions, includes the making of cigarettes, cigars, cheroots, beedts, cigarette lobocco, pipe tobacco, hookah tobacco, cheuting tobqcco, pan masrrla or ang chewing material hauing tobctcco as one of its irtgredients (bA whatcuer name called) or snuff and shall include- (i) packingl, Labetting or re labetlirtg, of contatners; 13 (ii) re-packing from bulk packages to retail packctges; and (iii) the adoption of any other method to render the tobacco product marketable; (l) "public place" means ang place to uhich the public haue access, Luhether as of ighl or not, and includes auditoium, hospital buildings, railuaA uditing room, amusement centres, restaurants, pubtic offices, court buildings, educational institLttions, libraies, public conueyances and the like uhich are uisited bg general public but does not include ang open space; (m) "sale", LDith its grammatical uaiations and cognate expressions, means anA transfer of propertA in goods by one person to another, Luhether for cash or on credit, or bg wag of exchange, qnd uthether tuholesale or retail, and includes an agreement for sale, and olfer for sate and exposure for sale; (n) "smoking", means smoking of tobctcco in any form u)hether in the form of cigarette, cigar, beedis or othenutse with the aid of a pipe, u)rapper or qnA other instnlments; (o) "specified utarning" meqns such uarnings qgainst the use of cigarctt?s or olher tobacco products to be printed, painted or inscribed on packages oJ cigarettes or other tobacco products in such fonn and manner as may be prescibed by n es made under this Act; (p) "tobacco products" means the products specified in the Schedule.

4. Prohibitlon of smoking in a public place.-No person shall smoke in ang public place: Prouided thqt tn a hotel hauing thirtA rooms or a restaurarut haulng seating capcrcitA of thiftA persons or more and tn the atrports, q separdte prouision for smoking area or space mag be made. 5. Prohibition of ad,uertisetnent o.f cigdrettes q.nd other tobacco products.-(1) No person engaged in, or purPoied to be engaged in the production, supply or distibution of cigarettes or anA other tobacco products sLall qduertise and no person houing control ouer a medium shall cause to be aduertised cigarettes or any other tobacco products through that medium and no person shall take part in ang aduertisement u.thich directlg or indirectlg suggests or promotes the use or consumption of cigqrettes or ang other tobacco products. (2) No person, for ang direct or indirect pecwniary benefit, shall- l4 (a) displag, cause to displag, or permit or authoise to displag ang adueftisement oJ cigqrettes or ang other tobacco product; or (b) sell or couse to sell, or permit or authoise to sell a film or uideo tape contqining adueftisement of cigarettes or qny other tobacco product; (c) distribute, cause to distibute, or permit or authorise to distibute to the public enA leq|Tet, hand-bill or document which is or uhich contqtns an aduertisemenl of cigarettes or anA otler tobacco product; or (d) erect, exhibit, fu: or retqin upon or ouer ang land, building, tual| hoarding, frome, post or structure or upon or tru any uehicle or shall disptag in anA manner u)hatsoeuer in ang place ang qduertisement of cigarettes or anA other tobacco product: Provided that thLS sub section shalL not applg in relation to- (a) an aduertisement of cigqrettes or anA other tobacco product in or on a package containing cigarettes or qnlJ other tobacco product; (b) aduertisement of cigarettes or onA other tobqcco Product tuhich s displaged at the entrance or inside a Luarehouse or o shrtp tuhere cigorettes cnd arLA other tobaccn products are olfered for distnbution or sale. (3) No person, shctll, under q controct or othentise promote ot ogree to promote Llae use or consumption of- (a) cigorettes or anA other tobdcco product; or (b) ang trade mark or brctnd name of cigarettes or ang other tobacco product in exchange for a sponsorship, giJt, prize or scttolarship giuen or agreed to be giuetl by another person.

6. Prohibition on sale of cigarette or other tobacco Products to q person belou the age of eighteen gedrs $nd in partlculqr @rea. No person shall selt, olfer afor sale, or permit sale of, cigarette or qng other lobacco proLluct- (a) to anA person who is under eighteen gears of age, and (b) in an qreq within a rddius of one hundred gards of ang educational institution.

7. Restrictions on trade and commerce in, and production, suPPlg and d.istribution oJ cigarettes qnd other toba.cco Products.-(1) No person sh,,ll, directlg or indirectlg, produce, supplg or distibute cigarettes or anA other tobacco products unless euery Package of cigarettes or ang other tobacco products produced, supplied or distributed bg him bears thereon, or on its label such specirted wqrning including o pictoial warning qs maA be prescribed. l 15 (2) No person shall carry on trade or commerce in cigarettes or any other tobacco products unless euery package of cigarettes or any other tobacco products sold, supplied or distibutcd bg him be,ars thereon, or on its label, the specified uarning. (3) No person shall import cigarettes or ang other tobacco products for distibution or supplg for a ualuable considerotion or for sale in India unless euery package of cjgarettes or anA other tobacco products so imported by him bears thereon, or on its lqbel, the specified utaming. (4) The specifed uanting shall appear on not le,ss than orue of the largest panels of the package in uhich cigarettes or anA other tobacco products haue been packed for distibution, sale or supply for a ualuable consideration. (5) No person shall, directlg or indirecllg, produce, supplg or distibute cigarettes or anA other tobacco products unless euery package of cigarcttes or @nV other tobacco ptoducts produced, supplied or distibuted bg him indicates thereon, or on its label, the nicottne and tar contents on each cigaretle or as the case moA be on other tobacco products along utith the mo-rimum permissible limits thereof: Prouided that the nicotine and tar contents shall not exceed the maxtmum permissible quantitA thereof as mag be prescribed bg rules made under this Act. 77, Testlng ldboratory for nicotlne and tar contents.-For purposes oJ testing the nicotine and tar contenls in cigqrettes and ang other tobacco products the Central Gouernment shall by notification in the Official Gazette grant recognition to such tesling laboratorA as thal Gouemment maV deem necessary.

72. Pouer of entry and seo'rch.-(l) Any police olJicer, not below the rank of q sub-inspector or ang ofJrcer of State Food or Drug Administration or ang other officer, holding the equiualent rank being not belolt the rank of SubJnspector of Police, authoise side bg the Central Gouemment or by the Stqte Gouernment mag, if he has ang reason to suspect that ang prouision of this Act has been, or is betng, contrauened, enter and search in the manner prescribcd., at ang reasonoble time, ong factory, building, business premises or anA othcr place,- (a) where ang trade or commerce in cigarettes or ang other tobacco products is caried on or cigarettes or anA other tobacco products are produced, supptied or dtstibuted; or (b) uLhere ang aduertisement oJ the cigarettes or qnA other tobacco prod.ucts has been or is being made. (2) The proutsions of the Code oJ Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), shatl applg to euery search and setzure made under this Act. 16

73. Pouer to seize.-(l) If ang police offi.cer, not belout the ronk of a sub- inspector or ang olfcer of Stqte Food or Dnq Administrqtiotl or ong other ofJiccr, holding the equiualent rank being not belou the rank of Sub Inspector <tf Police, authorised bg the Centrat Gouernment or bg the State Gouernment, has ang reason to belieue thaL (o) in respect of ang package of cigarettes or ang other tobacco products. or (b) in respect of ang advertisement of cigarettes or onA other tobacco products, the prouisions of this Act haue been, or are being, antrauened, he may seize such pack<tge or oduertisement mqterial in the manner prescibed- (2) No package of cigqrettes or anA other tobacco products or adDertisemcnt maleial seized under clouse (a) of sub-section (1) shaLl be ret.ained b! the ofrtcer uho seized the Package or o.duertisemenl mateiql for a pcrioti <:xceeding ninetg daAs from the date of the seizure- unless thc. approueL ol the District Judge, uithin the local limits of whose lurisdiction such seiz,ure lro.s made, hQs been obtained for such. rctet ion.

74. Confi.sca.tion of package-Ang Package of cigarettes or ang other lobacco prodLlcts or anA aduertisement mateial of cigarettes or anA other tobacco pt oducts, in rcspect of Luhich ang prouision oI this Act hi.,.s been or is beitg cotirauened, shqlt be li(lble to be confiscated.: Prouided theL, tuhere it is estqbtished to the satisfaction of the courl atLjudging Lhe cotLf.scation that the person in uhose possessi<'n' power or control anLl such package of cigarettes or anA other tobacco products is lctund i-s lot responsible for the contrquention of the prouisions of tlis Act, the Court rnag, instead oJ making qn oider for the confiscation of suclt packagc, rnoke such other order quthorised bg this Act oqainst the pcrson gu ty of the breach of the prouisions of this Act as it nLaU think Jit.

76. Co^Jiscation not to interjere urith otrf,r punishments.-No conjiscation made, costs ordered to be paid under this Act shrlll preuent the nJlichon of ang punishment to uhich the person qffected therebY $ liablc undcr ttrc prouisions of this Act or under ang other lau. 2O. Punishment Jor failure to gioe specified uarning q.nd nicotine o.nd tar cornte'l.ts.-(1) Ang person uho produces or manufactures cigorettes or tobqcco products, tuhich do not contain, either on the package or on their lobel, the specifi.ed uaming qnd the nicotine and tor contents, sholt in the cqse oJ fi.rst conuiction be punishoble uith imprisonmcnt for a tcrm uthich mag ertend to tlro Aears, or with fine whtch mug cxtctld to fiue thousand rupees, or uith both, and for the second or subsequent conuichon, with impisonment for a tern uhich mag extc nd lo fiue gears and u.)ith ftne uthich mag extend to ten thousqnd rupees. 17 (2) AnA percon uho sells or d[stibutes cigarettes or tobacco products which do not contain either on the package or on their labcl, the spectJi.ed u.nrning and the nicotine and tar contents shall tn the case of f.rst conuiction be punishable with imprisonment for a term, which mdA extend to one Aear, or with fine which mag extend to one thousand rupees, or uith both, and, for the second or subsequent conuiction, with tmpisonment for a term uhich may exlend to two years and. Luith Jine tthich may extend. to three thousand rupees.

27. Punishrraent lor smokin.g in certain places.-(l) Whoeuer conttauenes the prouisions of section 4 shall be puntshable with fine uhich maA extend to tt o hundred rupees. (2) An offence under this section shalL be compoundable and shall be tied summailg in acmrdance uith the proceclure prouidcd. for summary tials in the Code of Ciminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 197a).

10. On earlier occasions, identical issucs to the cases on hand, came up for consideration before this Court in W.P-No.32O2 of 2Ol4 and batch, W.P.No.14O93 of 2071, W.P.No.4942 of 2012, a:nd W.P.Nos.2206O of 2Ol7 and 23213 of 2Ol7

11. In Writ Petition No.3202 of 2Ol4 and batch, this Court dealt with a similar situation where the police were interfering with the business activities of the petitioners therein, in serving flavoured hookah in their coffee shops. Dealing with the said aspect and also taking into consideration various provisions of the COTP Act, the petitioners cases were rejected, holding as under: Insofar as the interkrence of the poLice are concerned, it is "16. pertinent to note that the provtstons of Section 12 of the COTP Act confer powers to the police not below the renk of Sub Inspector of Police or ang officer of the State Food or Dnq Administration or ang other officer, holding the equiualent rank being not belotu the rank of Sub Inspector of Police authorized bg the Central Gouentment or bg the Stote Gouernment, 18 maA, if he has any reason to suspect that ang prouision of thts Act ha.s been or is being contrauened, enter and search in the manner prescribed at anA reasonable time at factorA, buildtng, business or anll other place. In the light of this prouision and Section 149 Cr.P.C., the 17 contention o.f the lcarned Counsel for the petitioners that thc acts of the PoLice amowlL to infnngement of fundamental 'ights and Lhat rhe police ore ,not the competent authoritg, but it is oftlg the G H.M.C that is competent to interkrc uith the business of the petitioners, u)ho dre seruing Hookhas, does not haue ang force. Therefore, this CourT is of the uiew that untler Section 12 of the Act and Section 149 Cr.P.C., the police inctuding the other auth<tnties as authorized bA both Central ond State Gouerftments haue ample powerc to inspect the business premises of the petitioners ln. this regard, the learned Counsel for the petitioners hos failed to place ang su<:h authoitg, under which, the A.H.M.C is onlg competent to tnspcct thc business of the petitioners in seruing Hookah.

18. In t;iew of the Joregoing discusston, this Court is of the uiew that the action of lhe respondenls police is in accordance witlt lana and ang interference bg this Court with the pouers oJ the police in this regard bg exercising tlte pou)crs utlder Section 226 of the Constitution of Indta, is not warrcutted. P-Lo1hcr, the Director General of Potice, Telangarta Slofe, is 19. directed to tcLkc uppropriate action against the oJficers for their inaction in respect of tlTe restaurqnts betng used qs hookah centrcs ottd olso to teke action egotnst thc high-handed acts of the ofrt.cers, who nterkred. tuith the restaurants, which are being run Luithout there being ang uiolations "

12. In W.P.No.14O93 of 2011, a learned Single Judge of this Court rcferring to the order passed in W.P.No.32O2 of 2Ol4 and the judgment of the Hon'bie Apex Court in Narinder S.Chadha and t9 others a, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (supra), held as under: "The facts in W.P.No.3202 of 2O14 and batch are same and similor to the facts asserted in the instant wit petition. Further, as ightly pointed out by the respondents there can't and ought not to be a blankel d[rection against the respondents for such direction utrtuallg preuents the Police from euen knowing or inuestigating what is actuallg happerung in the name of Jlauoured hookahs. The decbion oJ Hon'ble Supreme Court is distinguishable to the fact situqtton of this case, for a Circular uns challenged in the reported case and the legalitA of the Circular was considered and decided. Whereas in the case on hand the prager and the cause of action are on Glleged interkrence bA Policc agatlst Jlauoured hookahs seruing and no u)itten order or proceeding s placed on record to examine the legaLitg of such order or proceed.ing. Therefore, hauing regard to the uielu taken in the common order dated 27-O 1- 2017 in W.P.No.32O2 of 2014 and batch, I am satisfied that the instant wit petition can be dismissed bg adopttng the same reasons. "

13. In W.P.Nos.22O6O of 2Ol7 and 23273 of 2017, a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 02.O8.2017, observed as follows "17) The tuo judgments refened to aboue deak with sitttotion tuhere the inlerkrence of the police in the business of the petitioners in seruing JTauoured hookah utas in challenge. Situation on hqnd now is totaLlA different and stilt uerse in uieu of the notification dated 23.05.2017 ulhich prohibited seruice in smoking areq or spoce prouided Jor smok[ng. Admittedlg, hookah is a product u)hich contqins tobacco and when ang product contaitls tobacco, the same has to be puffed in a non-smoking zone. In vieta of the circutar issued bg the Gouernment, service of hookah euen in the no-smoking zone would be impermissible. 20 It is to be noted here that the aboue said prouision tuill apptg if 18) the hatel/ restourant hc.s 30 rooms and the coffee shc'p has seating capacitg of 30 persons or more, which does not mean that hookth cqn be freelg supplied in a restourant Luhere sedting capacitA is les-s l/tan 30 or a hotel where there qre less number of rooms."

14. As per Section 4 of the Act, if the restaurant has seating capacity of 30 persons or more, a separate provision for smoking area has to be provided. The word Hookah has not been defined in the COTP Act. Section 3 (k) of the COTP Act defines "production". A reading of the saicl provision wouid show that the word "production" includes making of cigarettes, cigars, cheroots, beedis. cigarette tobacco, pipe tobacco, hookah tobacco, chewing tobacco, pan masala or any chewing material having tobacco as one of its ingredients (by whatever name called) or snuff. Therefore, it implies that all the tobacco products which are taken with the aid of pipe, wrapper or any other instruments would fall within the definition of Section 3(n) of the COTP Act. If the restaurant or coffee shop falling within the ambit of Section 4 of the COTP Act, has to provide a separate smoking zone. The Govcrnment of India has issued a notification in the month of Ma5,, 2O17, which clearly indicate that no service sha11 be allowed in a smoking area or in the space provided for smoking. Therefore, the restaurant owners shall not involve themselves in the act of service to their customers, in the prohibited area. Section 12 of the Act confers powers to the police officer not below the rank of 21 Sub-Inspector of Police or any officer of authorized by the Central Government or State Government to search the premises at any reasonable time, if he suspects that the provisions of the Act are contravened namely cigarettes or any other tobacco products are produced, supplied or distributed or whether any advertisement of the cigarettes or any other tobacco products are being made. While affecting a search and seizure, Section 12 of the Act cleariy says, that the provisions of the Cr.P.C. have to be followed.

15. Having regard to the above, and taking into consideration, consistent view taken by this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petitions, this Court do not hnd any illegality in police officers, entering into the premises and searching the same, so as to find out whether the owners of the restaurants have contravened or violated any of the provisions of the COTP Act and Rules made thereunder.

16. It is useful to'refer arrd extract Article 47 of the Constitution of India, which reads as follows: "47. Dutg of the State to rdise the leuel oJ nutrltion and the stand.qrd of lidng dnd. to improue public health.- The StQte shall regard the raising of the leuel of nutrition and the standard of tiuing of its people and tle improuement of pubtic health as among its pimary duties and, in particular, the State shall endeauour to bing about prohibition oI the consumption except for medicinal purposes of intoicating dinks and oJ drugs tuhich are injuious to health. 22

17. This Constitutional Provision specifically deals with improvement of public health a primary duty of the State. The Court should enforce this duty against a defaulting local authority. Any article which is hazardous or injurious to public health is a potential danger to the fundamental right to life guaranteed to the citizens under Article 21 read with Article 47 and a paramount duty is cast on the States and its authorities to achipve an appropriate level of protection to human life and health. Further, restrictions imposed by law for supply and serving of tobacco products including serving hookah cannot bc said to be violative of Artrcle tg(t)(g). Having regard to the principles contained in Article 47 of the Constitution, the State or its authorities are having right to regulate the sale of tobacco product which includes running of hookah centrcs. While granting Iicense to run the restaurants, the State or its authorities must resort to strict scrutiny of the applications. For the purpose of grant of licence, the law as contained in the rules, did not contain any provision for relaxing any condition. ln Vincent Panikurlangq.rq u. Union of India3 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "maintenance and improvement of public health have to rank hrgh as these are indispensable to the very physical existence of the community and on the betterment of these depends, the I AIR 1987 SC 990: 0987) 2 SCC 165 23 building of the society of which the Constitution makers envisaged Attending to public health is of high priority.

18. Section 4 of the COTP Act defines prohibition of smoking in a public place. It states tJlat no person shall smoke in any public place. Provided that in a hotel having thirty rooms or a restaurant having seating capacity of thirty persons or more and in the airports, a separate provision for smoking area or space may be made. Admittedly, the petitioners in all these cases have obtained licence to rrn the hotels / restaurants. Section 6 of the COTP Act prohibits sale of cigarette or other tobacco products to a person below the age of eighteen years and in an area within a radius of one hundred yards of any educational institution. A conjoint reading of Section 6 read with Section 4 of COTP Act clearly indicate smoking of tobacco in any form is prohibited in public places like Hotels, Restaurants and Airports. Rule 4(3) of the Rules, 2008, a smoking area or space shall be used only for the purpose of smoking and no other service(s) shall be a1lowed. A careful reading of the above provisions, would indicate that the Hotels and Restaurants where normally food is supplied, are prohibited from smoking of any tobacco product, unless a separate area is made to allow smoking. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the licence obtained by them to run the 24 Hotels/ Restaurants also allows the m to have smoking of hookah and run hookah centres is not tenable

19. The petitioners having obtained licence to rrn hotels/ restaurants have to comply the conditrons imposed by tlie Municipal Corporation, whereas Section 4 of the COTP Act, prohibits smoking in a public place . Therefore, the conditions imposed by the Municipal Corporation for granting trade licence to run Hotels/ Restaurants are varying from the conditions that are incorporated under the provisions of COTP Act. The licence obtained for running Restaurants wtrich have the seating capacity of thirty pcrsons or more does not confer any right to the petitioners to convert the same as a place of smoking area or to run hookah centre.

20. Admittedly, in the present cases on hand, the petitioners have obtained liccnccs to run Hotels/ Restaurants/Bars :rnd without specifying any area as smoking zone as per the provisions of COTP Act and Rules made thereunder, as such they are not having right to contend that they are entitled to run the hotels / restaurants as Hookah centres.

21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder S. Ch,adha u. Municipol Corporation of Greater Munbai (supra), rvhile deahng 25 with the Condition 35(C) of the Circular issued by the Bombay Municipal Corporation, observed as follows: "14. It wilt be seen that Condttion 35(C) of the impugned circular essentiallg reproduces Rule a(3) of the said Rules and then adds the u.tords "or anA apparahts destgned to facilitate smoking". The effect of the added words is th<tt ct Hookah cannot be prouided by the hotel, restaurant or airport being an apparatus designed to facilitate smoking. "

16. We find it dilfcult to accept lhis contention because, rf carefullg read, Rule 3 deqls uith the prohibition of smoking in public places, ruhich is referable to Section 4 (main part) tuhereas Rule 4 is referable to the prouiso to Section 4. Rtlle 3 utould onlg applg uhere there is a total prohibttlon of smoking in all public places as is clear from Rule 3(1)(a) uhich makes it incumbent on the oLuner, propietor, etc. of a publtc place to ensure that no pcrson smokes in that place. Il is in lhat contert that qshtraAs, matches, lighters and other things designed to facilitate smoking are not to be prouided tn public places uhere smoktng ts prohibited altogether. "

22. As per Section 3(1) of the COTP Act, "pubiic place" means any place to which the public have access, whether as of right or not, and includes auditorium, hospital buildings, railway waiting room, amusement centres; restaurants, public offrces, court buildings, educational institutions, libraries, public conveyances and the like which are visited by genera-l public but does not include any open space. As per Section 3(g) of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli (for short 'City Police Act"), "public place of a-rnusement" means every place or house or tent or enclosure or booth or any other ')6 building whether permanent or temporary where singing, music, dancing or any diversion or game and anything giving amusement or the means of carrying on the same is provided and to which the public are admitted either on payment of money or with the intention that money may be collected from them on admission and shali include the race-course, circus, theatre, music r and dancing hal1, billiard room, g/mnasium or any other place allotted for such purposes. As per Section 3(h) of the City Police Act, "public place of entertainment" means any enclosed or open place to which the public have zrccess and where any kind of articles of food and drink are supplied for consumption by any person or for thc profit of any person owning or having any interest in or managing such place and shall include a refreshment room, tea house, liquor house, boarding house, lodging house, hotel, tavern or sendhi, wine, ganja, toddy, bhung or opium shops. As per Section 3(l) of the City Police Act, "public place" also includes the place within the premises or enclosure of any public building or monuments and all places to which the public have access for drawing water, washing or bathing or for the purpose of recreation.

23. It is pertinent to state that "public place'i as delined under Section 3(l) of COTP Act, includes amusement centres, and the same is defined in "public place of amusement" under Sections 3(g) of City 27 Police Act. As per Chapter III of the City Police Act, the Commissioner of Police is having power to issue rules and regulations for preservation of order. Further, as per Section 32 of the City Police Act, for enforcement of orders under Sections 22,23 and 24 of the City Police Act, the police officer may arrest arry person without warrant. As per Section 84 of the City Police Act, police is having power to specify conditions etc., for obtaining licences and permits. Since the City Police Act, confers power over the amusement Centres/ restaurants, which are defined as "public place" under the COTP Act and as per Rule 4 of the Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places Rules, 2008 permission is required specifying smoking area. In yiew of the powers being conferred on the Commissioner of Police, under the City Police Act, the police are having power to supervise the buginess establishments of the petitioners and seize the hookah centres if there is any violation of the provisions of the COTP Act. Therefore, to establish hookah centres, permission from the concerned authority has to be obtained under the provisions of City Police Act. The petitioners shall follow rules and regulations issued by the Commissioner of Police from time to time for preservation of the public order. 28

24. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that imposing of certain conditions to run the Hookah Centres wouid meet the ends of justice i) As Charcoal is being used for serving hookah in the Hookah Centres, the petitioners shall obtain licence from the Municipal Corporation as specilied under Section 521(1)(b) of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. I ii) Since the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli confers power over the amusement Centres / re staurants which are deltned as "public place" under the COTP Act and as per Rule 4 of the Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places Rules, 2008 permission is required specifying smoking area. Therefore, to establish hookah centres, the petitioners shall obtain necessary permission from the concerned authority under the provisions of the City Police Act. iii) The Hookah Centres are prohibited from serving any tobacco product to the persons below the age of eightecn years Pictorizrl health-warning labels at the entrance must be displayed. iv) The respondents-police are at liberty to supewise and inspect the Hookah Centres, for any violation of rules and regulations, provisions of the guidelines or circulars issued under .the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli. v) If there is any violation of the provisions of the COTP Act and the Rules made thereunder, the respondents-police are at 29 liberty to take appropriate action as per the provisions of the i COTP Act.

25. Subject to fulfilling the above conditions and also the provisions of COTP Act, the respondents-police are directed not to interfere with the business activity of the petitioners for running Hookah Centres. If rthe police are found to act in a highhanded manner, the ownerS of the Hookah Centres are at liberSr to bring the I same to the notice 6f the Director General of Police/Commissioner of Police, as directed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3202 of 2014 and batch, in which 6vent the said authority shal1 forthwith take i necessary steps in that regard.

26. Accordingly, dll these Writ Petitions are disposed of. i MiscellaneouS Petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions i shall stand closed. No order as to costs. i I i I I Date: 15.I 1.2023 C.V. BHASKAR REDDY, J