1. In all these cases, the petitioners have challenged the order at Annexure ‘L’ dated 30.4.2011 whereby the health officer of Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (‘BBMP’ for short) has cancelled their trade licence for carrying on the business at different places of the City of Bangalore.

2. The petitioners are the owners of restaurant/cafes situated at different parts of the City of Bangalore. It is contended that as a pat of their service for a long period of time, they offer to their customers ‘hookah’, an eastern smoking pipe designed with a long tube passing through an urn of water that cools the smoke as it is drawn through. The officials of the BBMP raided the premises of the petitioners serving hookah and seized hookah paraphernalia therefrom. The petitioners made a request to the respondents for the return of the seized hookah equipment. However, no favourable response from the respondents was received. Therefore, they filed writ petitions before this Court in W.P.Nos.15435 to 15445/2011 for a direction to the BBMP and its Officers refraining from interfering with their business except in accordance with law. On 21.4.2011, this Court passed an order permitting the petitioners to make a representation to the respondents for return of the seized hookah apparatus. The petitioners have accordingly filed a representation as per Annexure ‘J’ dated 23.4.2011 to the Commissioner of BBMP requesting him to direct return of hookah apparatus seized from their respective premises and to direct the officials of the BBMP to refrain from interfering with their right to serve hookah. After considering the said representation, the second responded has passed an order at Annexure ‘L’ dated 30.4.2011 cancelling the trade licenses issued by the BBMP earlier. He has further directed the return of the hookah apparatus subject to the petitioners filing an undertaking that they will not put to use the said apparatus within the limits of BBMP in any manner.

3. The respondents have filed their objections asserting that the BBMP has jurisdiction to prohibit/regulate the business in hookah and that the petitioners cannot do the said business without obtaining specific licence as provided under the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (‘Act for short). The second respondent has passed a detailed order assigning the reasons for cancelling the trade licenses.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the order of cancellation of licenses as per Annexure ‘L’ is a quasi-judicial order. The second respondent has not jurisdiction whatsoever to pass the said order. Section 66 of the Act does not authorize the Commissioner to delegate his quasi judicial power to any of his sub-ordinate officers either expressly or by clear implication.

5. Alternatively, it is submitted that the petitioners are running restaurants and cafes offering inter alia hookah services which contains tobacco. The Regulation of hookah services comes within the provisions of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of trade and Commerce. Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (‘Tobacco Act, 2003’ for short). The respondents have no jurisdiction or authority to take action in so far as hookah service is concerned as the same is covered under the Tobacco Act, 2003.

6. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the Commissioner has delegated his power to grant licence to hotels, restaurants, etc, as per the order dated 10.11.1998 under Section 66 of the Act. That is how the second respondents has issued trade licences to the petitioners. When the second respondent has issued trade licence, it is implied that he has power to cancel the said licenses having regard to Section 21 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act, 1899. It is further contended that the second respondent on a detailed consideration of the facts and circumstances, has passed the impugned ord