The Court affirmed that while police can regulate hookah centers under the COTP Act, such regulation must adhere to legal principles and respect rights under Article 19(1)(g).

ORDER :

N. Tukaramji, J.

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…to issue order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents particularly Respondent No.5 and 6 in interfering with the petitioners lawful business activity in the name and style of M/s.PARK VUE situated at D.No.8-1 and 8-2, 5th Floor, Mathura Nagar, Raidurg, Navkhalsa Village, Gachibowli, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in serving the flavoured hookah without their being any contravention of COTP Act, 2003, without reference to any rule regulations or law by the Respondents as illegal, arbitrary and in violative of Articles 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India apart from being violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondents Police particularly Respondents No.5 and 6 to permit the petitioner to continue its business of serving flavoured hookahs in his business place without any hindrance or restrictions in the interest of justice and to pass......”

2. I have heard Mr. Nadella Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mahesh Raje, learned 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, this petition has been filed. The respondent police authorities are interfering in the name of regulation and imposing unreasonable restrictions without any lawful authority. Therefore, he prayed for necessary directions.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, submits that the act of serving Hookah necessarily implies the supply of 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 respondent authorities. However, fairly concedes that in similar matters this Court has directed petitioners/business establishments to comply with certain conditions, and upon such compliance, the respondent police authorities were directed not to interfere with their business activities. In view 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 ‘M/s.Park Vue situated at D.No.8-1 and 8-2, 5th Floor, Mathura Nagar, Raidurg, Navkhalsa Village, Gachibowli,Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District’ and contends that the respondent police authorities, without any legal prescription, are interfering with his business of serving flavoured Hookah.

7. In this context, it is pertinent to note that a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P. No. 15944 of 2022 decided on 08.12.2022, examined the 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 Advertisement 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 restaura