Karnataka High Court
M/S Forethought Ventures Pvt Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 3 January, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:237
WP No. 27793 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 27793 OF 2023 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
M/S FORETHOUGHT VENTURES PVT. LTD.,
RUNNING A HOTEL UNDER THE NAME
"STORIES BAR AND KITCHEN",
SITUATED AT NO.15, P36,
3RD AND 4TH FLOOR, 24TH MAIN ROAD,
ABOVE RBL BANK, J P NAGAR 1ST PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.17/17
NO.68, MANJUNATHA COLONY,
3RD CROSS, MARENAHALLI,
J P NAGAR 2ND PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560 078,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
Digitally signed by MR. GOWRI SHANKAR.
PADMAVATHI B K
(THE PETITIONERS COMPANY IS REGISTERED
Location: HIGH
COURT OF UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT)
KARNATAKA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GOVINDARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:237
WP No. 27793 of 2023
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
BENGALURU CITY, INFANTRY ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
SOUTH DIVISION,
SOUTH END CIRCLE OFFICE,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
JAYANAGAR SOUTH DIVISION,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
J P NAGAR POLICE STATION,
R K COLONY 2ND PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
6. THE CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH,
NARCOTIC DEPARTMENT,
MYSORE ROAD, CHAMARAJPET,
BENGALURU - 560 018,
REPRESENTED ITS INSPECTOR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH, HCGP)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) DIRECTION TO THE
RESPONDENTS NOT TO INTERFERE IN THE BUSINESS OF THE
PETITIONER INCLUDING SERVING HOOKAH TO ITS
CUSTOMERS IN SMOKING AREA IN THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY
AND ETC.,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:237
WP No. 27793 of 2023
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri. Govindaraju, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Sri. Manjunath, learned HCGP appearing for the
respondents.
2. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the
following prayers:
(i) Issue a mandamus direction to the
respondents not to interfere in the business
of the petitioner including serving Hookah to
its customers in smoking area in the
schedule property.
(ii) Further direct the respondents not to insist
upon the petitioner to obtain separate licence
for serving Hookah in the schedule property.
(iii) Pass such other further relief by this Hon'ble
court deems fit in the circumstances of the
case in the interest of justice."
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the
judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench in the case of
MR. M.B. SHIVAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
OTHERS.1, the Co-ordinate Bench has held as follows:
W.P.No.30673/2019 disposed on 24.07.2019
NC: 2024:KHC:237
"Sri Govindaraj K. Joisa, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Sri B.Balakrishna, learned Additional Government
Advocate for the respondents.
2. The matter is taken up for hearing with the
consent of the parties. It is heard finally.
3. Petitioner is before this Court seeking a writ
of mandamus to respondents not to interfere with the
lawful activities carried on by the petitioner. Petitioner is
said to be running a restaurant wherein the customers
are permitted to smoke hooka and respondents are
alleged to have interfered with the business of petitioner.
Hence, petitioner is before this Court for issue of writ of
mandamus to the respondents not to interfere with his
business.
4. Under similar circumstances, Coordinate
Bench of this Court by order dated 27.02.2017 passed in
W.P.No.8140/2017 had considered these aspects and
after taking note of the order passed in
W.P.No.14226/2015 on 03.09.2015 had held as under:
"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
NC: 2024:KHC:237
respondents or such other law enforcing
authorities would be entitled to take action in
accordance with law."
In that view of the matter, petitioner would be entitled
for similar relief.
5. At this juncture, learned Government
Advocate would submit that alleged customers of the
petitioner-restaurant under the guise of smoking hooka
are likely to indulge in activities, which are unlawful and
as such, police authorities should be permitted to keep a
check and also smoking having been prohibited in public
places, exclusive area for smoking hooka is to be
earmarked by the petitioner in the business premises,
where the hotel being run and as such, he prays for
additional condition also being imposed on petitioner.
6. Said contention deserves to be accepted for
the simple reason that under the guise of smoking
hooka, customers at the petitioner-restaurant cannot be
allowed to use ganja marijuana, etc. That apart,
smoking of hooka should not cause inconvenience to
other customers since smoking having been prohibited in
public places, an exclusive area with separate enclosure
requires to be reserved for hooka bar. Hence, in addition
to the conditions noted hereinabove an additional
condition requires to be imposed on the petitioner and it
shall be as under:
(a) Petitioner shall earmark exclusively a
separate area/place(s) with appropriate
enclosure in the hotel premise and
necessarily after obtaining licence for the
purpose of hooka smoking and no other
area or portion of premise shall be used by
the customers of the petitioner for smoking
hooka.
(b) Under the guise of inspection, the
respondent-jurisdictional police shall not
harass the petitioner. However, it does not
deter them from inspecting the premise at
periodical intervals with notice to the
petitioner, if necessary.
NC: 2024:KHC:237
7. In that view of the matter, instant petition is
disposed of by imposing the conditions in the order dated
03.09.2015 passed in W.P.No.8140/2017 and also the
additional conditions as noted above. Respondents are
hereby directed not to interfere with the legal activities
of petitioner. However, liberty as indicated hereinabove
would be available to the competent authorities to
proceed in accordance with law, if any illegal activities
are found in the premises of petitioner.
Ordered accordingly."
4. In the light of the issue standing covered by the
judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench and the facts being
undisputed, the petition stands disposed on the same terms.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JY
CT: BHK
