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

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1899

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J.
Coal And Caffeine – Appellant 
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent 
Writ Petition No.20787 of 2025
Decided On : 14-10-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : HABEEB ABUBAKAR ALHAMED
For the Respondent: GP FOR HOME

Court emphasized the necessity of legal compliance regarding tobacco regulations in public places and directed authorities to consider the petitioner's application for serving hookah, enforcing adherence to health safety provisions.

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, 7, and 12 - Writ of Mandamus - Petitioner, a café proprietor, seeks inspection of smoking area for serving hookah, previously restricted by authorities. Court determines inaction of authorities and underscores necessity for adherence to the COTPA provisions and local regulations regarding smoking areas and service of tobacco products. (Paras 2, 3, 16)

(B) Authority's discretion - Writ is directed at ensuring respondent authorities consider petitioner's representation on service of hookah, complying with legal frameworks for public health safety, supervision, and inspection rights of police. (Paras 16)

(C) Public health regulations - Regulations dictate the manner of operation for hookah centres, including obtaining appropriate licenses and age restrictions for services. (Paras 15)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner claims rights to serve hookah at his café after obtaining necessary permissions; however, has faced restrictions from local authorities for compliance with tobacco laws. (Para 3)

Findings of Court:
The court commands respondent authorities to review the petitioner's representation and decide in accordance with law within four weeks. (Para 16)

Issues: The court addresses whether the authorities' refusal to permit hookah service aligns with the existing tobacco laws and if the petitioner’s rights were upheld under these statutes.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes the need for regulation in tobacco product services, highlighting the obligation of authorities to respond to representations in a timely and lawful manner.

Result: Writ petition disposed of with no order as to costs.

Table of Content
1. writ petition for mandamus against authority inaction (Para 2 , 3)
2. interpretation of sections related to smoking and tobacco regulation (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. conditions imposed for hookah centre operation (Para 14 , 15)
4. concluding orders and directions to authorities (Para 16 , 17)

ORDER :

N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6. With their consent this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

2. This writ petition is filed seeking following prayer:-

“seeking a Writ of Mandamus questioning the inaction of the respondent No.5 in not considering the petitioner’s representation dated 23.09.2025 and coming for inspection of smoking area in accordance with the COTPA (Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution Act, 2003) and as well as to allow the petitioner herein to serve hookah to his clientele in the café named Inferno by HP having its premises at 2-74, Guttala Begumpet, Opposite to Indra Valua Madhapur, Hyderabad, TS-500 081.”

3. The facts of the case in brief as stated are that petitioner claims to be Proprietor of the Café namely ‘Inferno by HP’ having its premises at 2-74, Guttala Begumpet, Opposite to Indra Valua Madhapur, Hyderabad, TS-500 081. It is submitted that the petitioner has obtained all necessary permissions from various authorities to run its business. The petitioner has applied for provisional trade license from GHMC. The respondent authorities are restricting the petitioner from serving flavoured hookahs in the said Coffee Shop. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed.

4. On a perusal of the COTP Act, 2003, Sub-clauses (b), (k) and (n) of Section 3: Definitions, reads as under:

“(b) cigarette includes,--

(i) any roll of tobacco wrapped in paper or in any other substance not containing tobacco,

(ii) any roll of tobacco wrapped in any substance containing tobacco, which, by reason of its appearance, the type of tobacco used in the filter, or its packaging and labelling is likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as cigarette, but does not include beedi, cheroot and cigar;

(k) production, with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, includes the 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 and shall include--

(i) packing, labelling or re-labelling, of containers;

(ii) re-packing from bulk packages to retail packages; and

(iii) the adoption of any other method to render the tobacco product marketable;

(n) smoking, means smoking of tobacco in any form whether in the form of cigarette, cigar, beedis or otherwise with the aid of a pipe, wrapper or any other instruments;”

5. Section 4 of the Act stipulates prohibition of smoking in a public place. As per the State Amendment of Gujarat, Section 4A has been inserted which is extracted hereunder for reference:

“Prohibition of hookah bar.--4A.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no person shall, either on his own or on behalf of any other person, open or run any hookah bar in any place including the eating house.

Explanation.-- The term eating house shall have the same meaning as assigned to it by clause (5A) of section 2 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951 (Bom. XXII of 1951).”

6. Similarly the State of Maharashtra also inserted Section 4A as was inserted by State of Gujarat.

7. This Court has taken note of the above amendments carried out by other States in their respective statutes on the subject which may serve as useful guide.

8. Section 6 of the Act refers to prohibition on sale of cigarette or other tobacco products to persons below the age of 18 years and in particular area.

9.

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 Back to top