[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

Sayeed Bin Ali Mujadi vs Prl.Secy., Home Dept., Hyd., And 3 ... on 9 April, 2026

Author: N.Tukaramji

Bench: N.Tukaramji

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

        THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

                  WRIT PETITION No.9153 OF 2015

                              09th April, 2026

 Between:

 Sayeed Bin Ali Mujadi.
                                                                    ...Petitioner
                                      AND

 The State of Telangana and Others
                                                                ...Respondents

 ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

"...to issue a Writ, order or direction and more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in interfering with the business of the petitioner under the name and style of Tun Time Parlour in serving of flavoured Hookahs without reference to rule, law or regulations as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of Cigarettes and other Tobacco products COTP Act and consequently direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner to continue his business of serving flavoured Hookahs in his coffee shop without any hindrance or restrictions except under law and pass......"

2. I have heard Mr. P.Vamsheedhar Reddy, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government

Pleader for Home.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner pleads that seeking a

direction to the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to

NTR, J

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.

NTR, J

6. The petitioner is running a Hookah Centre under the name

and style of 'Fun Time Parlour 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 restaurant owners, who are having a separate place for smoking and for hookah consumption, shall inform the same to the Station House Officer, so that they can have surveillance on the activities that are taking place in the said place and whether the business is carried out as per the norms and the procedure laid down under the Act. Police under the guise of this, shall not harass the persons running these centres without following the procedure. The officers, who are competent alone can enter the premises. If there is any

NTR, J

high-handed action on the part of the police, the same shall be brought to the notice of the higher authorities and they shall cause enquiry into the same and take appropriate action."

8. Furthermore, in an analogues matter, this Court issued

certain directions and, upon compliance by the petitioner,

restrained the respondent police from interfering with the

petitioner's business. For ready reference, the relevant directions

are reproduced hereunder:

"In the light of the interim order granted by this Court in identical matters, there shall be an order alike in this matter also in the following terms:

If the petitioner installs video cameras, either open or concealed, records its operations and also undertakes to preserve the recordings for a minimum of fifteen days period, so that the police, in case of suspicion or necessity, can replay the footage and examine as to whether any undesirable elements or young persons in conflict with law are frequently visiting the petitioner's café for hookah, the petitioner's café may be permitted to carry on its operations. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would suggest that:

i) The Hookah centres shall not be kept open beyond 11.00 p.m. for its customers;

ii) They must necessarily exhibit the signboard that they are Hookah centres; and

iii) They must also exhibit the notice board that children below the age of 18 are not liable to be entertained as guests, even for any other recreational purpose including consumption of coffee inside the Hookah Centres."

9. That apart, a batch of Writ Petitions filed by persons

similarly placed as the petitioner was considered in W.P. No. 8223

NTR, J

of 2013 and connected matters, decided on 15.11.2023,

concerning the operation of hookah centers. The relevant portion

of the said judgment is extracted hereunder for ready reference:

"In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that imposing of certain conditions to run the Hookah Centres would meet the ends of justice.

i). As Charcoal is being used for serving hookah in the Hookah Centres, the petitioners shall obtain licence from the Municipal Corporation as specified under Section 521(1)(b) of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.

ii). Since the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli confers power over the amusement Centres/restaurants which are defined as "public place" under the COTP Act and as per Rule 4 of the Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places Rules, 2008 permission is required specifying smoking area.

Therefore, to establish hookah centres, the petitioners shall obtain necessary permission from the concerned authority under the provisions of the City Police Act.

iii). The Hookah Centres are prohibited from serving any tobacco product to the persons below the age of eighteen years. Pictorial health-warning labels at the entrance must be displayed.

iv). The respondents-police are at liberty to supervise and inspect the Hookah Centres, for any violation of rules and regulations, guidelines or circulars issued under the provisions of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli.

v). If there is any violation of the provisions of the COTP Act and the Rules made thereunder, the respondents-police are at liberty to take appropriate action as per the provisions of the COTP Act.

25. Subject to fulfilling the above conditions and also the provisions of COTP Act, the respondents-police are directed not to interfere with the business activity of the petitioners for running Hookah Centres. If the police are found to act in a highhanded manner, the

NTR, J

owners of the Hookah Centres are at liberty to bring the same to the notice of the Director General of Police/Commissioner of Police, as directed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3202 of 2014 and batch, in which event the said authority shall forthwith take necessary steps in that regard."

10. In view of the settled legal principles discussed hereinabove,

and there being no distinguishing features or exceptional

circumstances brought to the notice of this Court warranting a

deviation, it is considered just and appropriate to dispose of the

present writ petition by directing the petitioner to strictly comply

with the following directions.

i. The business place must necessarily exhibit the signboard that they are Hookah Centres;

ii. They must also exhibit the notice board that children below the age of 18 are not liable to be entertained as guests, even for any other recreational purpose including consumption of coffee inside the Hookah Centres.

iii. The Hookah Centres shall not be kept open beyond 11.00 p.m. for its customers;

iv. The Hookah Centres are prohibited from serving any tobacco product to the persons below the age of eighteen years. Pictorial health-warning labels at the entrance must be displayed.

v. If the petitioner shall install video cameras, either open or concealed, records its operations and shall preserve

NTR, J

the recordings for a minimum of thirty days period, so that the police, in case of suspicion or necessity, can replay the footage and examine as to whether any undesirable elements or young persons in conflict with law are frequently visiting the petitioner's café for hookah.

vi. As Charcoal is being used for serving hookah in the Hookah Centres, the petitioner shall obtain license from the Municipal Corporation as specified under Section 521(1)(b) of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.

vii. Since the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli confers power over the amusement Centres/ Restaurants which are defined as "public place" under the COTP Act and as per Rule 4 of the Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places Rules, 2008, permission is required specifying smoking area. Therefore, to establish hookah centres, the petitioner shall obtain necessary permission from the concerned authority under the provisions of the City Police Act.

viii. The respondents-police are at liberty to supervise and inspect the Hookah Centres, for any violation of rules and regulations, guidelines or circulars issued under the provisions of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli.

ix. If there is any violation of the provisions of the COTP Act and the Rules made thereunder, the respondents- police are at liberty to take appropriate action as per the provisions of the COTP Act.

NTR, J

11. Subject to the petitioner's strict compliance with the

conditions stipulated hereinabove, and with 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'), the

respondent police authorities are directed not to cause any

interference in the lawful business activities of the petitioner. In

the event of any deviation by the petitioner, it shall be open to the

respondent police authorities to initiate and pursue appropriate

proceedings in accordance with law.

12. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is allowed. No