1. Writ petitions challenging police interference in running hookah bars within restaurant designated smoking areas under COTPA and Rules. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(All) 1460
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW
Shekhar B. Saraf, Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, JJ.
M/s Aftek Foods and Beverages Pvt. Ltd. and another - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Food Safety and Drug Admin. U.P. Lko. and others - Respondents
Writ - C No. - 10713 of 2023, Writ - C No. 10126 of 2025, Writ - C No. 10209 of 2025, Writ - C No. 10359 of 2025, Writ - C No. 10515 of 2025, Writ - C No. 10622 of 2025, Writ - C No. 1096 of 2026, Writ - C No. 1098 of 2026, Writ - C No. 11016 of 2025, Writ - C No. 11529 of 2025, Writ - C No. 11540 of 2025, Writ - C No. 11542 of 2025, Writ - C No. 11543 of 2025, Writ - C No. 11552 of 2025, Writ - C No. 11819 of 2025, Writ - C No. 11825 of 2025, Writ - C No. 1203 of 2026, Writ - C No. 1216 of 2026, Writ - C No. 12238 of 2025, Writ - C No. 12248 of 2025, Writ - C No. 1226 of 2026, Writ - C No. 1228 of 2026, Writ - C No. 12284 of 2025, Writ - C No. 12290 of 2025, Writ - C No. 12442 of 2025, Writ - C No. 12484 of 2025, Writ - C No. 12586 of 2025, Writ - C No. 12635 of 2025, Writ - C No. 1492 of 2026, Writ - C No. 153 of 2026, Writ - C No. 1585 of 2026, Writ - C No. 1591 of 2026, Writ - C No. 197 of 2026, Writ - C No. 2060 of 2026, Writ - C No. 2066 of 2026, Writ - C No. 2410 of 2026, Writ - C No. 2458 of 2026, Writ - C No. 4759 of 2026, Writ - C No. 4912 of 2026, Writ - C No. 4936 of 2026, Writ - C No. 502 of 2026, Writ - C No. 5084 of 2026, Writ - C No. 509 of 2026, Writ - C No. 5114 of 2026, Writ - C No. 5192 of 2026, Writ - C No. 5319 of 2026, Writ - C No. 54 of 2026, Writ - C No. 5659 of 2026, Writ - C No. 594 of 2026, Writ - C No. 6028 of 2025, Writ - C No. 6103 of 2026, Writ - C No. 6114 of 2026, Writ - C No. 6118 of 2026, Writ - C No. 6483 of 2026, Writ - C No. 6767 of 2026, Writ - C No. 7293 of 2025, Writ - C No. 7345 of 2026, Writ - C No. 7879 of 2025, Writ - C No. 7895 of 2025, Writ - C No. 7905 of 2025, Writ - C No. 7931 of 2025, Writ - C No. 833 of 2026, Writ - C No. 8446 of 2025, Writ - C No. 8472 of 2025, Writ - C No. 8476 of 2025, Writ - C No. 8508 of 2025, Writ - C No. 8884 of 2025, Writ - C No. 8928 of 2025, Writ - C No. 9727 of 2025, Writ - C No. 9741 of 2025, Writ - C No. 9762 of 2025, Writ - C No. 9796 of 2025, Writ - C No. 9953 of 2025, Writ - C No. 11536 of 2025, Writ - C No. 12768 of 2025, Writ - C No. 12240 of 2025, Writ - C No. 868 of 2026, Writ - C No. 2849 of 2026, Writ - C No. 1272 of 2026, Writ - C No. 5530 of 2026, Writ - C No. 7592 of 2025
Decided On : 29-09-2026
Important Points
The 2017 amendment to Rule 4(3) of the Prohibition of Smoking in Public Place Rules, 2008, absolutely prohibits any "service," including hookah provision, within Designated Smoking Areas. This restriction is a valid limitation on trade to protect public health and the non-smoker's right to clean air.
Subject
Administrative Law - Public Health and Regulatory Law
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.19(1)(g), Art.21, Art.226, Art.47
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.133
FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS ACT: S.31
CIGARETTES AND OTHER TOBACCO PRODUCTS PROHIBITION OF ADVERTISEMENT AND REGULATION OF TRADE AND COMMERCE, PRODUCTION, SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION ACT: S.12, S.31, S.4, S.6
CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT: S.2(30), S.8
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT: S.2(42)
PROHIBITION OF SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES RULES: R.4(3)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.133
FOOD SAFETY AND STANDARDS ACT: S.31
CIGARETTES AND OTHER TOBACCO PRODUCTS PROHIBITION OF ADVERTISEMENT AND REGULATION OF TRADE AND COMMERCE, PRODUCTION, SUPPLY AND DISTRIBUTION ACT: S.12, S.31, S.4, S.6
CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT: S.2(30), S.8
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT: S.2(42)
PROHIBITION OF SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES RULES: R.4(3)
Headnote
(A) Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 - Sections 3, 4, 6, 12, 13 and 31 - Prohibition of Smoking in Public Place Rules, 2008 - Rules 3, 4(1), 4(3) and 4(3A) - Constitution of India - Articles 19(1)(g), 21 and 47 - Operation of hookah bars in designated smoking areas - The term "regulation" has a wide connotation and includes "prohibition" if the activity is inherently dangerous or injurious to public health (Paras 36-38) - The 2017 amendment to Rule 4(3), substituting "no other service(s)" with "no service," transforms the legal position from a qualified prohibition to an absolute prohibition of all services within a Designated Smoking Area, including the service of hookah (Paras 41-42, 46) - The right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g) must yield to the fundamental right of non-smokers to breathe clean air under Article 21 and the State's duty to improve public health under Article 47 (Paras 57-VII, 58).
(B) Nature of Hookah Provision - The provision of hookah apparatus and tobacco for consideration constitutes a "service" rather than a "rental" or "self-service" model, as it intrinsically requires technical assembly, preparation, and intermittent staff assistance for replenishment and maintenance (Paras 48-56).
(C) Jurisdiction - While food safety and municipal authorities lack the jurisdiction to regulate or issue licenses for hookah bars, police officers are expressly empowered under the governing Act to ensure compliance through search, seizure, and penalties (Paras 34-35, 57-VIII).
Facts of the case:
Petitioners holding food service restaurant licenses established dedicated smoking areas to operate hookah bars. Following a temporary prohibition imposed during a pandemic, the petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to prevent police interference and to confirm that their operations were legal. They contended that providing hookah apparatuses amounted to a "rental" or "self-service" arrangement rather than a prohibited "service," and that such restrictions violated their fundamental right to trade.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the 2017 amendment to the Rules explicitly prohibits any service in smoking areas. The "self-service" and "rental" arguments were rejected as functionally unfeasible and legally unsound. It was held that the provision of hookah requires an active service component that is strictly forbidden in designated smoking areas to protect non-smoking personnel and the general public.
Issues: Whether the rendering of hookah service is permissible in a Designated Smoking Area in restaurants under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
Ratio Decidendi: The amendment to Rule 4(3) of the 2008 Rules, by removing the word "other" from "no other service," created an absolute ban on all services within smoking areas. Because the nature of hookah consumption necessitates technical preparation and continuous assistance, it constitutes a "service." This prohibition is a reasonable restriction on the right to trade to safeguard public health and the fundamental right to a smoke-free environment.
Result: All the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
(B) Nature of Hookah Provision - The provision of hookah apparatus and tobacco for consideration constitutes a "service" rather than a "rental" or "self-service" model, as it intrinsically requires technical assembly, preparation, and intermittent staff assistance for replenishment and maintenance (Paras 48-56).
(C) Jurisdiction - While food safety and municipal authorities lack the jurisdiction to regulate or issue licenses for hookah bars, police officers are expressly empowered under the governing Act to ensure compliance through search, seizure, and penalties (Paras 34-35, 57-VIII).
Facts of the case:
Petitioners holding food service restaurant licenses established dedicated smoking areas to operate hookah bars. Following a temporary prohibition imposed during a pandemic, the petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to prevent police interference and to confirm that their operations were legal. They contended that providing hookah apparatuses amounted to a "rental" or "self-service" arrangement rather than a prohibited "service," and that such restrictions violated their fundamental right to trade.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the 2017 amendment to the Rules explicitly prohibits any service in smoking areas. The "self-service" and "rental" arguments were rejected as functionally unfeasible and legally unsound. It was held that the provision of hookah requires an active service component that is strictly forbidden in designated smoking areas to protect non-smoking personnel and the general public.
Issues: Whether the rendering of hookah service is permissible in a Designated Smoking Area in restaurants under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
Ratio Decidendi: The amendment to Rule 4(3) of the 2008 Rules, by removing the word "other" from "no other service," created an absolute ban on all services within smoking areas. Because the nature of hookah consumption necessitates technical preparation and continuous assistance, it constitutes a "service." This prohibition is a reasonable restriction on the right to trade to safeguard public health and the fundamental right to a smoke-free environment.
Result: All the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- statutory interpretation
- public health and safety
- administrative law
-
practice and procedure
-
writ petitions
- mandamus (Para 1)
-
writ petitions
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Aarsh Raj, Abhay Pratap Singh, Abhilasha Rastogi, Abhishek Mishra, Abhishek Singh, Adarsh Pratap Singh, Ajay Kumar Singh, Ajeet Pratap Singh, Akansha Pathak, Akhileshwar Singh, Akriti Pandey, Aman Thakur, Anand Kumar, Anand Mishra, Anand Prakash Dixit, Anubhav Awasthi, Anuj Kumar Awasthi, Anuj Kumar Gupta, Anurag Singh, Arpit Verma, Arun Kumar Yadav, Aryan Singh, Ashish Kumar, Ashutosh Mishra, Atma Ram Mishra, Chandan Verma, Deepansi, Dharmendra Kumar Verma, Dhiraj Pratap Singh, Dinesh Kumar Mishra, Divya Dwivedi, Hari Krishna Chaubey, Harshit Singh, Harshita Rajnish, Indra Pratap Singh, Ishan Bhasin, Kamlesh Kumar Gupta, Kshemendra Shukla, Lakshmi Kant Tripathi, Mangal Sen Yadav, Manoj Kumar Mishra, Mohd. Imran Khan, Muskan Bharti, Neeta Tekwani, Nitesh Kumar Mishra, Palak Sahai Gupta, Pankaj Mishra, Pankaj Verma, Pawan Kumar Shukla, Piyush Tripathi, Prabhakar Trivedi, Prashant Mishra, Prerna Jalan, Raghvendra Pandey, Rahul Kumar, Raj Krishna, Rakesh Kumar Upadhyaya, Ratnesh Kumar Rawat, Ritic Bhardwaj, Ritick Bhardwaj, Sachin Dixit, Sagar Singh, Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi, Sanidhya Shukla, Sanjeev Kumar Dwivedi, Saurabh Kashyap, Shailendra Kumar Singh, Sheo Shankar Verma, Shikhar Chaube, Shivanshu Goswami, Shobh Nath Pandey, Shobhit Mohan Shukla, Sivendra Kumar Srivastav, Sudhanshu Singh, Suraj Sharma, Surya Bhan Singh, Sushil Kumar, Syed Aftab Ahmad, Syed Ahmad Mehdi, Tauheed, Vaibhav Srivastava, Vaibhav Upadhyay, Varsha Pandey, Vatsala Singh, Vineet Tripathi
For the Respondent: Abha Srivastava, Adnan Hashmat, Aftab Ahmad, Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, Anuj Kumar Srivastava, C.S.C., G.A., Jaiyesh Bhoosreddy, Krishna Kumar Pandey, Mohammad Talib Khan, Namit Sharma, Om Shankar Tiwari, Rajesh Kumar Singh, Shailendra Singh Chauhan, Shailesh Kumar Pathak, Shashwat Dwivedi, Shruti Sahu, Siddarth Tripathi, Siddharth Shankar Dubey, Siddharth Tripathi, Yatindra Pathak
For the Petitioner: Aarsh Raj, Abhay Pratap Singh, Abhilasha Rastogi, Abhishek Mishra, Abhishek Singh, Adarsh Pratap Singh, Ajay Kumar Singh, Ajeet Pratap Singh, Akansha Pathak, Akhileshwar Singh, Akriti Pandey, Aman Thakur, Anand Kumar, Anand Mishra, Anand Prakash Dixit, Anubhav Awasthi, Anuj Kumar Awasthi, Anuj Kumar Gupta, Anurag Singh, Arpit Verma, Arun Kumar Yadav, Aryan Singh, Ashish Kumar, Ashutosh Mishra, Atma Ram Mishra, Chandan Verma, Deepansi, Dharmendra Kumar Verma, Dhiraj Pratap Singh, Dinesh Kumar Mishra, Divya Dwivedi, Hari Krishna Chaubey, Harshit Singh, Harshita Rajnish, Indra Pratap Singh, Ishan Bhasin, Kamlesh Kumar Gupta, Kshemendra Shukla, Lakshmi Kant Tripathi, Mangal Sen Yadav, Manoj Kumar Mishra, Mohd. Imran Khan, Muskan Bharti, Neeta Tekwani, Nitesh Kumar Mishra, Palak Sahai Gupta, Pankaj Mishra, Pankaj Verma, Pawan Kumar Shukla, Piyush Tripathi, Prabhakar Trivedi, Prashant Mishra, Prerna Jalan, Raghvendra Pandey, Rahul Kumar, Raj Krishna, Rakesh Kumar Upadhyaya, Ratnesh Kumar Rawat, Ritic Bhardwaj, Ritick Bhardwaj, Sachin Dixit, Sagar Singh, Samanvya Dhar Dwivedi, Sanidhya Shukla, Sanjeev Kumar Dwivedi, Saurabh Kashyap, Shailendra Kumar Singh, Sheo Shankar Verma, Shikhar Chaube, Shivanshu Goswami, Shobh Nath Pandey, Shobhit Mohan Shukla, Sivendra Kumar Srivastav, Sudhanshu Singh, Suraj Sharma, Surya Bhan Singh, Sushil Kumar, Syed Aftab Ahmad, Syed Ahmad Mehdi, Tauheed, Vaibhav Srivastava, Vaibhav Upadhyay, Varsha Pandey, Vatsala Singh, Vineet Tripathi
For the Respondent: Abha Srivastava, Adnan Hashmat, Aftab Ahmad, Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, Anuj Kumar Srivastava, C.S.C., G.A., Jaiyesh Bhoosreddy, Krishna Kumar Pandey, Mohammad Talib Khan, Namit Sharma, Om Shankar Tiwari, Rajesh Kumar Singh, Shailendra Singh Chauhan, Shailesh Kumar Pathak, Shashwat Dwivedi, Shruti Sahu, Siddarth Tripathi, Siddharth Shankar Dubey, Siddharth Tripathi, Yatindra Pathak
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argue hookah service is permissible under COTPA; respondents contend amended Rules prohibit any service in designated smoking areas. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. The 2017 amendment to Rule 4(3) imposes an absolute prohibition on all services, including hookah, in designated smoking areas. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 55 )
4. Post-2017 amendment, Rule 4(3) absolutely prohibits any service, including hookah, in a designated smoking area; regulating includes prohibiting. (Para 36 , 37 , 41 , 42 , 46 )
5. Writ petitions dismissed; operation of hookah bars and rendering hookah services in restaurants violates Rule 4(3) of the amended Rules. (Para 58 , 59 )
6. Is the service of hookah permissible in a designated smoking area in restaurants under the COTPA and amended Rules?
No. The 2017 amendment to Rule 4(3) imposes an absolute and unqualified prohibition on all services, including hookah, in designated smoking areas. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 )
7. Does the term 'regulation' under the COTPA include the power to prohibit an activity?
Yes. The court held that 'regulation' has a wider connotation which includes 'prohibition' when the activity is inherently dangerous or injurious to public health. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 )
8. Does providing hookah apparatus to patrons constitute a 'service' or a 'rental' under the amended Rules?
It constitutes a 'service', not a rental, as the patron does not have absolute control over the apparatus and is confined to using it within the designated smoking area. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 55 , 56 )
9. Is the judgment in Narinder S. Chadha v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai applicable post the 2017 amendment?
No. The 2017 amendment specifically overrode the Narinder S. Chadha interpretation by removing the word 'other' from 'no other services' in Rule 4(3). (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 45 )
JUDGMENT :
SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
| S. NO. | CONTENTS |
|---|---|
| I | PRAYER |
| II | FACTS |
| III | CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS |
| IV | CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS |
| V | ISSUE |
| VI | ANALYSIS |
| A | Genesis of Hookah |
| B | Scheme of the COTPA |
| C | Objectives of the COTPA |
| D | Preamble of the COTPA |
| E | Relevant Provisions of the COTPA |
| F | Methodology of Hookah |
| G | Discussion and Findings |
| VII | CONCLUSION |
| VIII | EPILOGUE |
“Have you not reason then to be ashamed and to forbear this filthy novelty, so basely grounded, so foolishly received and so grossly mistaken in the right use thereof. In your abuse thereof sinning against God harming yourself both in person and goods, and raking also thereby the marks and notes of vanity upon you by custom thereof making yourself to be wondered at by all foreign civil nations and by all strangers that come among you to be scorned and held in contempt; a custom loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs, and in the black stinking fume thereof nearest resembling the horrible stygian smoke of the pit that is bottomless.”
King James I of England in
‘A Counterblast to Tobacco’
The present bunch of writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India craving indulgence of this Court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding respondents to issue categorical guidelines to the effect that the petitioners in all the connected writ petitions are having a valid food service-restaurant license which also permits them to run a dedicated smoking space in accordance with the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘COTPA’) as well as the Prohibition of Smoking in Public Place Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’) framed thereunder, where facilitation for smoking Hookah is provided to its patrons. Petitioners in furtherance pray to command the police authorities to not create any hindrance in their business of running Hookah Bar. Since, prayer in all the connected writ petitions are common, therefore, all the connected writ petitions are being dealt with and disposed of by this common judgment.
FACTS
2. The factual matrix of the leading writ petition bearing Writ C- 10713 of 2023 are delineated below:
a. M/s Aftek Foods and Beverages Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Petitioner’) was granted food service restaurant license by the Food Safety and Drug Administration Department under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘FSSA’) under the franchise and in the name of Fashion TV Cafe situated at Kisan Bazar, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.
b. During covid lockdown a Suo Motu PIL No. 716 of 2020 was registered by this Court, wherein vide an order dated August 27, 2020, this Court had issued a strict direction to the Chief Secretary, State of U.P. to not permit the bars, restaurants and cafes to serve hookah until further orders due to alarmingly high transmission of Corona virus in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
c. Subsequently, the Chief Secretary issued a communication dated September 5, 2020 banning running of all hookah bars across the State of Uttar Pradesh d. After relaxation of COVID-19 restrictions, this Court Court in PIL No. 716 of 2020 vide order dated February 21, 2023 had observed, without going into the merits of the controversy, that the business of running hookah bars is regulated under the FSSA. The Court had further granted liberty to the individual interveners to apply to the statutory authority in accordance with law for grant/renewal of license to run their respective businesses of Hookah Bar.
e. In pursuance of order passed in PIL No. 716 of 2020, Commissioner, Food Safety and Drug Administration issued a circular dated March 29, 2023 directing Food Safety and Drug Administration department to dispose food license applications received from hotels/restaurant/food establishments operating hookah bar on being found to
