Karnataka High Court
Skyline Lounge And Rooftop vs State Of Karnataka on 4 January, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:393
WP No. 27736 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 27736 OF 2023 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
SKYLINE LOUNGE AND ROOFTOP
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
5TH FLOOR, NO.17/152/4, VENUGOPAL SWAMY
TOWERS, NEELADRI ROAD,
DODDATHOGUR, BENGALURU URBAN,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560100
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED PARTNER,
MR. KIRAN KUMAR R.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHESHADRI H. S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by
PADMAVATHI B K REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
Location: HIGH
HOME, DEPARTMENT,
COURT OF VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
KARNATAKA
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
BENGALURU CITY, INFANTRY ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
ELECTRONIC CITY POLICE STATION,
ELECTRONIC CITY, BENGALURU-560 100.
4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ELECTRONIC CITY POLICE STATION,
ELECTRONIC CITY, BENGALURU-560 100.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:393
WP No. 27736 of 2023
5. THE BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER, J.C.ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 002
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. S.H. PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES OF 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT No. 1 TO 5 NOT TO INTERFERE IN THE BUSINESS OF
THE PETITIONER PERTAINING TO PROVIDE SERVICE OF HOOKA TO
ITS CUSTOMERS IN SMOKING AREA OF PETITIONER BUSINESS
PREMISE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri.Sheshadri H.S., learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Sri. Manjunath, learned HCGP appearing for
the respondents No.1 to 4 and Sri.S.H.Prashanth, learned
counsel for respondent No.5.
2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking the
following prayer.
(a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the Respondents No.1 to 5 not to
interfere in the business of the petitioner
pertaining to provide service of Hooka to its
customers in smoking area of petitioner business
premise.
(b) Pass any other order, writ or direction as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in
the interest of justice.
NC: 2024:KHC:393
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:
"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.
W.P.No.30673/2019 disposed on 24.07.2019
NC: 2024:KHC:393
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."
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:
NC: 2024:KHC:393
(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.
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
AP
CT:TSM
