SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Gau) 256

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Suman Shyam, J.
M/s True Wellness Venture Pvt. Ltd. And Ors - Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam And Ors - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 75 of 2021
Decided On : 18-02-2021

Advocates Appeared:
M. Bhattacharjee, Advocate, P.N. Goswami, Advocate

Compliance with the provisions of the Act of 2003 and the Rules framed thereunder is essential for operating restaurants, and specific undertakings can allow the operation of Hookah Bars within the specified legal framework.

Headnote:

Hookah Bars - Licensing Issue - Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 - Section 4, Rule 3, Rule 4 - The court discussed the provisions of the Act of 2003 and the Rules of 2004 and 2008, highlighting the statutory ban on smoking in public places and the permissibility of smoking in designated areas within specified restrictions. The court emphasized the need for compliance with the Act and Rules, and allowed the petitioners to operate their restaurants with specific undertakings.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners operated restaurant-cum-Hookah Bars based on trade licenses issued by the Guwahati Municipal Corporation. The Corporation issued a notice directing closure of Hookah Bars, citing a communication from the Government of Assam prohibiting tobacco encouraging places like Hookah Bars.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Act of 2003 and the Rules permit smoking in designated areas within specified restrictions. It held that the question of legality and validity of the impugned notice was not necessary to decide in the present proceeding and allowed the petitioners to operate their restaurants with specific undertakings.

Issues: The issues involved the jurisdiction of the GMC to issue trade licenses for Hookah Bars, the statutory ban on smoking in public places, and the permissibility of smoking in designated areas within specified restrictions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of the Act of 2003 and the relevant Rules, emphasizing the need for compliance with the Act and Rules, and allowing the petitioners to operate their restaurants with specific undertakings.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition by granting leave to the petitioners to submit proper applications with specific undertakings, and if such undertaking is furnished, the respondent No.2 shall pass appropriate orders allowing the petitioners to operate their restaurants by adhering to the provisions of the Act of 2003 and the Rules framed thereunder.

JUDGMENT

Suman Shyam, J. - Heard Mr. P. N. Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners. I have also heard Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel, Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC), appearing for the official respondents.

2. It appears that the writ petitioners herein were operating their respective restaurant-cum-"Hookah Bars" in different locations within the city of Guwahati on the basis of trade licences issued by the Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) authorities. Their trade licences was also renewed from time to time. However, pending consideration of their request for renewal of trade licences, on 03.10.2020, the respondent No.3 had written to the Government of Assam seeking clarification as to whether, the GMC authorities can go ahead and issue trade licence to Hookah Bars. In response to the communication dated 03.10.2020, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Guwahati Development Department, had issued reply dated 19.10.2020, according to which, the Government of Assam would not allow operation of tobacco encouraging places like Hookah Bars. Acting on the communication dated 19.10.2020, the respondent No.3 had issued the impugned notice dated 18.12.2020 directing closure of Hookah Bars within the Guwahati Municipal Corporation area. Consequently, the restaurant-cum- Hookah Bars operated by the five petitioners herein had to be closed down. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed.

3. By referring to the provisions of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (here-in-after referred as the "Act of 2003" as well as the Rules framed under Section 31 of the aforesaid Act, Mr. Goswami submits that the Act of 2003 does not impose total ban on smoking of tobacco and Hookahs in such restaurants and therefore, the impugned notice is without jurisdiction. Mr. Goswami has also referred to and relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court of India rendered in the case of Narinder S. Chadha and others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others, (2014) 15 SCC 689 to contend that similar orders by the Municipal Authorities, banning Hookah Bars in other States have been held to be illegal by the Apex Court upon interpretation of the provisions of the Act of 2003 and the Rules framed thereunder. Urging that the GMC authorities do not have any power or jurisdiction either to issue trade licence or refuse the same with regard to any item not included in Schedule-IV of Section 180 of the GMC Act, 1971, the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the impugned circular is without jurisdiction and therefore, is liable to be struck down by this Court. It is also the submission of Mr. Goswami that the petitioners would never violate any provisions of the Act of 2003 and the Rules framed thereunder. Therefore, there cannot be any justifiable ground to close down the restaurants operated by the petitioners since the same impinges upon the question of livelihood of the owners of the restaurants and the number of employees engaged therein.

4. Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel, GMC, on the other hand, submits on instructions, that the GMC authorities have taken a policy decision not to issue any renewal licence in respect of "Hookah Bars" and therefore, the question of granting licence to the petitioners to operate "Hookah Bars" does not arise.

5. From a reading of the relevant provisions of the Act of 1971, I find that the GMC has the jurisdiction to issue licence only in respect of those items included in Schedule-IV of Section 180 of the Act. I also find that "Hookah Bar" is not specifically mentioned in Schedule-IV of Section 180 of the GMC Act, 1971. If that be so, a question may arise as to whether there is any need, at all, to obtain NOC or trade liccence from the GMC to operate a "Hookah Bar".

6. It is to be noted herein that as per Se

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top