Karnataka High Court
Dawn And Beach vs State Of Karnataka on 19 December, 2023
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:46879
WP No. 28542 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 28542 OF 2023 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
DAWN AND BEACH
(AN PARTNERSHIP FIRM)
BRAND NAME- THREE DOTS AND A DASH
NO. 840/1, 100 FT ROAD
METRO PILLAR 56 AND 57
INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 038
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
RAGHAVENDRA RAMESH
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANJAY YADAV B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by
PADMAVATHI B K HOME DEPARTMENT
Location: HIGH REPRESENTED BY
COURT OF PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
HEALTH AND FAMILY
WELFARE DEPARTMENT
REPRESENTED BY
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:46879
WP No. 28542 of 2023
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
BENGALURU CITY
INFANTRY ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
CRIME-BANGALORE CITY
CCB-BANGALORE
INFANTRY ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
BANGALORE EAST
SHIVAJI NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 051.
6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
BANGALORE SOUTH
BENGALURU - 560 038.
7. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION
BENGALURU - 560 003.
8. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
J.P.NAGAR, POLICE STATION
BENGALURU - 560 078.
9. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
C.C.B. WOMEN AND NARCOTICS
(W AND N) SQUAD, N.T.PET
COTTONPET MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 053.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP)
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:46879
WP No. 28542 of 2023
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO INSIST UPON THE
PETITIONER TO OBTAIN A SEPARATE LICENSE FOR PROVIDING
SERVICE OF SMOKING TOBACCO THROUGH HOOKAH WITHIN
THE SPECIALLY PROVIDED / EARMARKED SMOKING AREA IN
THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF PETITIONER UNDER NAME AND
STYLE OF THREE DOTS AND A DASH AT NO. 47/1, 9TH CROSS
ROAD, SARAKKI INDUSTRIAL LAYOUT, 3RD PHASE, J.P.
NAGAR, BENGALURU 560078 AND METRO PILLAR 56 AND 57,
840/1, 100 FEET RD, INDIRA NAGAR 1ST STAGE, H COLONY,
INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU 560038.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking a writ in the
nature of mandamus by directing the respondents not to insist
upon the Petitioner to obtain a separate license providing
service of smoking tobacco through hookah within the specially
provided/earmarked smoking area in the business premises of
Petitioner.
2. Heard Sri. Sanjay Yadav B., learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri Manjunath K., learned High
Court Government Pleader representing the respondents.
NC: 2023:KHC:46879
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the issue in the lis stands covered by the
judgment of this Court in W.P.No.21073/2022 dated
15.11.2022, wherein, it has held as follows:
"Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the issue in the lis stands covered by the
judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.14226/2015 dated 03.09.2015, wherein, it has
held as follows:
2. The petitioner claims to be a firm
registered and is carrying the business of Snacks
Bar and is serving coffee and other products in the
name and style 'Brews N Bytes' at No.54/7, 30 th
Cross, B Main Road, Corportion layout, 4 th T Block
Jayanagar, Bengaluru 560 041. For carrying on
such business, the petitioner is stated to have
rented out the premises. In the said premises, the
petitioner claims that they have provided a
separate smoking zone wherein apart from smoking
tobacco in other forms, they are also providing the
facility of such smoking through Hooka. The
petitioner contends that though no licence is
required to be obtained by the petitioner for
providing such services to its customers, the
respondents have been interfering with his business
seeking that they obtain licence and therefore the
petitioner claiming to be aggrieved is before this
Court.
3. Having taken note of the contention put
forth by the petitioner, at the outset, it is to be
noticed that the respondents have not intimated
the petitioner in writing to that effect so as to
create a cause of action for the petitioner to
NC: 2023:KHC:46879
approach this Court. However, taking note of the
allegations made by the petitioner that such
interference is being caused by the police, though
no mandamus in the nature of injunction against
the respondents in performing their legal duty
could be granted, the issue relating to the use of
Tobacco in such cases needs to be taken note of to
examine whether law contemplates securing licence
in that regard. Insofar as the use of Tobacco, the
same is regulated under the provisions of the
Cigarattes and other Tobacco products (Prohibition
of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and
Commerce, Production Supply and Distribution) Act
2003. Under the said Act smoking has been defined
which includes the smoking of Tobacco in any form
including the use of wraper or in any other
instrument and for that a licence is not prescribed
notwithstanding the restrictions provided.
4. If that be the position, the use of the
instrument known as Hooka cannot be prohibited
as long as such smoking is of Tobacco through the
Hooka and no other prohibited substance is used.
Therefore, if the said Hooka is used for any other
illegal purpose, certainly the law enforcing
authorities including the jurisdictional police would
be entitled to take appropriate action in accordance
with law.
5. Therefore, the only direction that is
required to be issued in the instant petition to the
respondents is not to insist upon the petitioner to
obtain licence for the use of Hooka in the smoking
zone provided by the petitioner in their premises, if
such facility is provided only for smoking Tobacco
through Hooka. However, if any credible
information is received and in the process of
monitoring, if any illegal activity is found including
use of any banned substance, certainly the
respondents or such other law enforcing authorities
would be entitled to take action in accordance with
law. "
NC: 2023:KHC:46879
In the light of the afore-quoted order and for the reasons
aforementioned, the petition stands disposed in the same
terms.
4. The aforesaid direction would not mean that the
petitioner would not obtain requisite permission/licence from
the hands of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike for use
of hookah.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NVJ
CT:SS
