- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
M/S MID EAST SHISHA AND CAFE v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- 1 -
NC: 2024:KHC:820
WP No. 28633 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 28633 OF 2023 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
M/S. MID EAST SHISHA AND CAFE,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED BUSINESS AT
D.NO. 3-29/2/2, GROUND FLOOR,
KONAJE VILLAGE, THIPLEPADAVU,
ASSAIGOLI, ULLAL TALUK,
D.K. DISTRICT - 574 199,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
MUJIB SAYYAD.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LETHIF B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
POLICE HEADQUARTERS,
#2, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
NEAR POLICE TRAINING SCHOOL,
- 2 -
PANDESHWAR,
MANGALURU CITY,
D.K. DISTRICT - 575 001.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
NEAR FORUM MALL,
PANDESHWAR,
MANGALURU CITY,
D.K. DISTRICT - 575 001.
5. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KONAJE POLICE STATION,
KAIRANGALA VILLAGE,
MUDIPU,
D.K. DISTRICT - 574 153.
6. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
ULLALA POLICE STATION,
ULLALA,
D.K. DISTRICT - 575 020. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH, HCGP)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION THE
RESPONDENTS TO NOT TO INTERFERENCE IN THE BUSINESS
OF THE PETITIONER INCLUDING THE SERVICE OF HOOKA TO
ITS CUSTOMER IN THE SMOKING AREA IN THE PETITIONERS
SHOP PREMISES.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
- 3 -
ORDER
Heard Sri. Lethif B., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Manjunath, the learned HCGP appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the following prayers:
" Issue a writ of Mandamus or in the nature thereof or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to not to interference in the business of the petitioner including the service of Hooka to its customer in the smoking area in the petitioner's shop premises.
To pass any such order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and Equity. "
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.
1 W.P.No.30673/2019 disposed on 24.07.2019
- 4 -
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 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 -
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.
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
- 6 -
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
SJK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71
CT:SNN
Alert