Disposed

M/S Rigan v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2021WP/19398/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition filed by M/S Rigan seeking directions not to interfere with their hooka business. Relying on a precedent, the Court held that no separate licence is required for hooka use provided only tobacco is smoked, subject to COVID-19 restrictions and police supervision of compliance.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents not to interfere in business and not to insist on separate licence for hooka service; petitioner to abide by COVID-19 restrictions.

M/S Rigan Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.19398/2021 (GM-POLICE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S RIGAN, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, NO.C-48 CENTURY CORBEL, BEHIND ICICI BANK, SAHAKAR NAGAR, BENGALURU 92. REP BY ITS PARTNER AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI PRITHVI CHILLUMULA REDDY.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI V. LAKSHMI KANTHA RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶12

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BANGALORE CITY, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶13

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE 560 063.

¶14

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DEVANAHALLI SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE 562 110.

¶15

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, DEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION , DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL 562 110.

¶16

¶17

THE CHIEF OFFICER, DEVANAHALLI PURASABHE, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT 562 110.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI VINOD KUMAR, AGA)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO INTERFERE IN THE BUSINESS OF THE PETITIONER INCLUDING SERVING OF HOOKA TO ITS CUSTOMERS IN SMOKING AREA IN THE SCHEDULE PREMISES. FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO INSIST UPON THE PETITIONER TO OBTAIN A SEPARATE LICENCE FOR SERVING HOOKA IN THE SCHEDULE PREMISES.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The subject matter of this writ petition is substantially

¶24

similar to the one in W.P.No.14226/2015 between DIAMOND ENTERPRISES Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS, disposed off by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 03.09.2015. Paragraph No.5 of the judgment reads as under:

¶25

"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."

¶26

¶27

Learned AGA is more than justified in submitting

¶28

that in addition to conditions stipulated in the cognate judgment, the petitioner has to abide by the COVID–19related-regulations/restrictions; the petitioner agrees to the same.

¶29

The Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.932-

¶30

933/1974 between A.V.VINODA & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY disposed off on 11.12.1974, has held that like cases should be treated alike and if relief is granted to a litigant, similar relief cannot be denied to other similarly circumstanced litigants, subject to all just exceptions.

¶31

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed off granting same relief to the petitioner herein as has been granted in the cognate writ petition above. The petitioner shall also follow the Covid related restrictions. It is open to the police to supervise the adherence to the conditions.

¶32

No costs.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

M/S Rigan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Rigan v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dandavathi Vidyavardhaka Sanga (R) Vs Registrar of Societies/Assistant Registrar

Smt Alakananda Deshpande Vs Karnataka State Judicial

Smt Dr Vidya L P Vs Dr Bharathraj M Y

Sri Sharanappa Basappa Vs the Authorised Officer Sundaram House Finance

Sri Manjunath Pv Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Vathsala T Vs M/S. Indostar Capital Finance Limited