Disposed

Rhythm Lounge through Proprietor Akshaya Kumar Shetty v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Jan 2026WP/80/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hookah parlour; herbal hookah; tobacco-free hookah; Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act 2003 as amended 2018; maintainability of writ petition; conditional prayer 'if'; no cause of action; premature writ petition; coercive action; Assistant Police Inspector; hookah parlour conditions; Munib Birya WP No. 3978 of 2019 order dated 22.08.2019; Bombay High Court Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction; w

What the court decided

AI extract

Rhythm Lounge through Proprietor Akshaya Kumar Shetty vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

BDP

¶2

42 WP-80-2026.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 80 OF 2026

¶5

Rhythm Lounge Through Proprietor Akshaya Kumar Shetty

¶6

…. Petitioner.

¶7

V/s

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

¶9

….Respondents.

¶10

AND

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO. 81 OF 2026

¶12

M/S. THE MATRIX Lounge and Herbal Hookah through Proprietor Mohammed Khairul Islam

¶13

…. Petitioner.

¶14

V/s

¶15

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

¶16

…. Respondents.

¶17

Mr. Shadab Khopekar, advocate for the petitioner in both the above writ petitions.

¶18

Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, I/C. P.P. with Mr. K.V. Saste, Addl. P.P. for respondent no.1 in both the above writ petitions.

¶19

CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

¶20

DATE : 4^TH FEBRUARY 2026

¶21

PER SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ.

¶22

Petitioner through its proprietor has approached this Court with a prayer that this Court may examine legislation and its nonapplicability to the tobacco free products and issue necessary directions to the effect that no coercive action of any nature is taken if the hookah is served without tobacco.

¶23

The language of the prayer (a) made in this writ petition and, in particular, the expression “if” qualifying the prayer made therein shall

BDP

42 WP-80-2026.doc

render these writ petitions not maintainable. Whether or not the hookah is served with or without tobacco is a question that has to be examined by the respondent-Authority in individual cases. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to an order dated 22^nd August 2019 in Writ Petition No.3978 of 2019 titled “Munib Birya & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.” and submits that a similar order may be passed in this case. In the order dated 22^nd August 2019, this Court observed that “if” there is any violation of provisions of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 as amended in the year 2018, the police officer not below the rank of Assistant Police Inspector is empowered to take legal action for the infringement of the conditions imposed on the hookah parlours.

¶28

If this is the case of the petitioner that a similar order should be passed in the present petitions, we may observe and, least to say, that there is no cause of action for the petitioner to file these writ petitions and the order passed in “Munib Birya” shall apply in other cases.

¶29

Writ Petition Nos.80 of 2026 and 81 of 2026 are disposed of.

¶30

[GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶31

BHARAT

¶32

DASHARATH PANDIT

¶33

Digitally signed by BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2026.02.10 20:18:56 +0530

¶34

Rhythm Lounge through Proprietor Akshaya Kumar Shetty v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rhythm Lounge through Proprietor Akshaya Kumar Shetty v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S. Athani Farmers Sugar Factory Ltd. through Its Chairman and M. D. vs Union of India Thr.General Manager

Zabbar Asif Movar vs the District Magistrate and Ors.

Ashok Janrao and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Its Sec. Law and Judiciary Dept and Anr.

Ashok Janrao and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Its Sec. Law and Judiciary Dept and Anr.

Unaided Schools Forum C/O Gujrat Research Society and Ors. vs State Election Commissioner and Ors.

Ram Niwas Jat vs Director General Ministry of It and Communication Dept of Posts