The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAMA KRISHNA KULKARNI, Advocate representing SRI MADHUSUDHAN P Counsel for the Respondents: MR R. LAXMIKANTH REDDy, AGp FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No. 32066 OF 2o2s ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief "...1o issue any Writ, Order or Direction more pafiicularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents, more pafticularly, respondent Nos. 3 lo 4 police, their subordinate officers in inbrtering rnlo Busrness and harassing the petitioner by calling them to the police station, as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Arlicles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently to direct the respondenl Nos. 3 to 4 not to interfere rn busrness including direction not to harass the petitioner by calling them to their police station/offices and pass such other order or orders. . ."

2. I have heard Mr. Rama Krishna Kulkarni, learned counsel, representing Mr. Madhu Sudhan P, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of the respondents

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner pleads that seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to continue his business on serving flavoured Hookah without any hindrance or restriction except under law. The respondent police authorities are interfering in the name of regulation and imposing unreasonable 2 \'lR. / ll l). .\o. ))066 ol 20?5 T restrictions without any lawful authority. Therefcre, he prayed for necessary directions

4. Learned Assistant Government pleader for Hone, submits that the act of serving Hookah necessarily implies the supply cf tobacco products. However, the nature of the substances being used in the preparation of flavoured Hookah has not been clearly specified by the petitioner. Apart from certain vague assertions, no specific particulars have been furnished as to the alleged manner of interference by the resoondent authorities. However, fairly concedes that in similar matters this Court has directed petitioners/business establishments to comply with cerlain conditions, and upon such compliance, the respondent police authorities were directed not to interfere with their business activities. ln vierv of the above, he prays that appropriate orders be passed in the instant matter.

5. I have perused the material on record.

6. The petitioner is running a Hookah Centre under the name and style of 'Signature Cafe Story at Madhapur, Seril,ngantpalty, Ranga Reddy Districf' and contends that the respondent police authorities, without any legal prescription, are interfering with his business of serving flavoured Hookah.

7. ln this context, it is pertinent to note that a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P No. 15944 of 2022 decided on 08 122022, examined the t J Nr&/ lV'.P. No. )2066 ol 2025 question as to whether a licence is required for running a Hookah Center under the provisions of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advedisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 ('COTP Act') and upon due consideration, recorded its conclusion in the following terms: "Though the Act does not contemplate any licence to be taken, in the larger interest of the youngsters, who are visiting the hookah centres, the restaurant owners shall have a definite place for hookah / smoking. The restaurant owners, who are having a separate place for smoking and for hookah consumption, shall inform the same to the Station House Officer, so that they can have surveillance on the activities that are taking place in the said place and whether lhe busrness is carried out as per the norms and the procedure laid down under the Act. Police under the guise of this, shall not harass the persons running these centres without following the procedure. The officers, who are competent alone can enter the premises. lf there is any high-handed action on the part of the police, the same shall be brought to the notice of the higher authoities and they shall cause enquiry into the same and take appropriate action."

8. Furthermore, in an analogues matter, this Court issued certain directions and, upon compliance by the petitioner, restrained the respondent police from interfering with the petitioner's business. For ready reference, the relevant directions are reproduced hereunder: "ln the light of the interim order granted by this CourI in identical matters, there shall be an order alike in this matter also in the following terms: 4 N'rR,/ ll .l'. l';0. )2066 ol .'02; lf the petitioner installs video cameras, either open cr concealed, records tts operations and also undeftakes to p,rssa*a tra recordings for a minimum ol fifteen days period, so tiat the potice, in case of suspicion or necessity, can replay the footage and examine as to whether any undesirable elements or young persons in conflict with law are frequenfly visiting tht: petitioner's cafe for hookah, the petitioner's cafe may be permitte,j to carry on its operations. Learned Asslstant Goveinment pteader for Home would suggest that: i) The Hookah centres shalt not be kept open beyond 11.00 p.m for its customers, ii) They must necessarily exhibit the signboard tnat they are Hookah centres; and iii) They must atso exhibit the notice board that chitdren below the age of 18 are not tiabte to be enterlained as guests, even for any other recreational purpo:;e including consumption of coffee inside the Hookah Cenrres. L That apart a batch of Writ petitions fited by persons similarly placed as the petitioner was considered in W.p. No 8223 of 2013 and connected matters, decided on 15..1 1 .2023, concerning the operation of hookah centers. The relevant portion of the said judoment is extracted hereunder for ready reference: "ln view of the above discussion, this Court is of the cpinion that imposing of certain conditions to run the Hookah Centres would meet the ends of justice. i) As Charcoal is being used for serving hookah in the Hookah Centres, the petitioners shall obtain licencrt from the Municipal Corporation as specified under Sectrcn 521(1)(b) of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 it) Since the Hyderabad City police Act, 1 348 Fasti confers power over the amusement Centres/restaurants which are defined as "pubtic place" under the COTI Act and as per Rule 4 of the prohibition of Smoking in public P/aces Rules, 2008 permission is required spec.ifying smoking area. Therefore, to establish hookah centre;. the petitioners shall obtain necessary permission front the 5 NIR, / IN'.P. No. )2066 o[ 202: concerned authority under the provisions of the City Police Act. iit) The Hookah Centres are prohibited from serving any tobacco product to the persons below the age of eighteen years. Pictoial health-warning labels at the entrance must be displayed. iv). The respondents-police are at libefty to supervise and inspect the Hookah Centres, for any violation of rules and regulations, guidelines or circulars issued under the provisions of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli v) lf there is any violation of the provisions of the COTP Act and the Rules made thereunder, the respondents-police are at libedy to take appropriate action as per the provisions of the 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 busrness activity of the petitioners for running Hookah Centres. lf the police are found to act in a highhanded manner, the owners of the Hookah Centres are at libedy to bring the same to the notice of the Director General of Police/Commissioner of Police, as directed by this Courl in Writ Petition No 3202 of 2014 and batch, in which event the said authority shall forthwith take necessary steps rn that regard."

10. ln view of the settled legal principles discussed hereinabove, and there being no distinguishing features or exceptional circumstances brought to the notice of this Court warranting a deviation, it is considered just and appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition by directing the petitioner to strictly comply with the following directions r. The business place must necessarily exhibit the signboard that they are Hookah Centres; ii. They must also exhibit the notice board that children below the age of 18 are not liable to be entetained as guests, \ '--.'1 (r -E ,\lR. / ll..i) \r. j:t)/;/; r. :():; even for any other recreational purpose including consumption of coFfee inside the Hookah Centres. The Hookah Centres shall not be kept open beyond

11.00 p.m. for its customers; lv. The Hookah Centres are prohibited from servirg any tobacco product to the persons below the age of eighteen years. Pictorial health-warning labels at the entrance must be displayed. V, IF the petitioner shall install video cameras, either open or concealed, records its operations and shall preserve the recordings for a minimum of thirty days period, so that the police, in case of suspicion or necessity, can replay the footage and examine as to whether anv undesirable elements or young persons in conflict with law are frequently visiting the petitioner's cafe for hookah. As Charcoal is being used for serving hookah in the Hookah Centres, the petitioner shall obtain licence from the Municipal Corporation as specified under Section 521(1)r b) of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. Since the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli confers power over the amusement Centres/Restaurants which are deflned 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 specifuing srnoking area. Therefore, to establish hookah centres, the petitioner shall obtain necessary permission from the concerred authority under the provisions of the City Police Act. t \ lL".l>. Na )2066 of 2O2i viii- Tne respondents-police are at liberty to supervise and inspect the Hookah Centres, for any violation of rules and regulations, guidelines or circulars issued under the provisions of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli. If there is any violation of the provisions of the COTP Act and the Rules made thereunder. the respondents-police are at liberty to take appropriate action as per the provisions of the COTP Act.

11. Subject to the petitioner's strict compliance with the conditions stipulated hereinabove, and 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 ('COTP Act'), the respondent police authorities are directed not to cause any interference in the lawful business activities of the petitioner. ln the event of any devialion by the petitioner, it shall be open to the respondent police authorities to initiate and pursue appropriate proceedings tn accordance with law

12. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs Pendinq miscellaneous aoolicEtions. if anv. shall stand closed. SD/. A.SREENIVASA REDDY SI TANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, "\*1 I '-- Hvderabad.

1. The Principal Secretary (Home), Secretariat Building, State of Telangana, Z i6e Oirector General of Police, The State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 3. Commissioner of Police Cyberabad, Gachibowli Hyderabad +. Tne Station House Officer, [t4adh.apur Police Station, Cyberabad S. One CC to SRI N/ADHUSUDHAN P, Advocate [OPUC] - O. i*o CCs to GP FOR HOIVE, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 7 . Two CD CoPies i{s , .1,,'i ,.d.'. r..j .-.jj:Ej',1,i };:?-:1.. 1 - '.-. ;.r;*if .,.. i HIGH COURT DATED:2411012025 \ I ORDER WP.No.32066 of 2025 ,./1 /', l'' /, 3 tt [[I 265 r,j 'i/ ,\' /r' \.r . {..' , .,)' . - -: -::;2' ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS bo r0b(