Dismissed

M/S Food Buffs LLP v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Nov 2023WP/23746/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed a writ petition filed by a hotel chain regarding interference with hookah service. The court ruled that the issue is covered by a coordinate bench judgment, directing respondents not to interfere but allowing inspections for legal compliance.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed on the terms of the coordinate bench judgment in W.P. No. 30673/2019; no separate interlocutory order issued.

M/S Food Buffs LLP Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:38927 WP No. 23746 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 23746 OF 2023 (GM-POLICE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶8

M/S. FOOD BUFFS LLP RUNNING A HOTEL UNDER THE NAME "STORIES BREWERY AND KITCHEN" SITUATED AT NO. 62, MUNIVENKATAPPA LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, B.G. MAIN ROAD, BEGURU HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 076. REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.17/17. DEEPA PLAZA, 3RD FLOOR, 24TH MAIN, 1ST PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 078. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR/PARTNER, MR. NERALL BAKHAI, (THE PETITIONER'S FIRM IS REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF LLP ACT, 2008)

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. GOVINDARAJU K., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,

¶13

¶14

NC: 2023:KHC:38927 WP No. 23746 of 2023

¶15

VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU CITY, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE MICO-LAYOUT CITY SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU - 560 100.

¶18

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MICO-LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 560 100.

¶19

THE CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, NARCOTIC DEPARTMENT, MYSORE ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU - 560 018. REPRESENTED ITS INSPECTOR.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO INTERFERE IN THE BUSINESS OF THE PETITIONER INCLUDING SERVING HOOKAH TO ITS CUSTOMERS IN SMOKING AREA IN THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY. ii) FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO INSIST UPON THE PETITIONER TO OBTAIN SEPARATE LICENCE FOR SERVING HOOKAH IN THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:38927 WP No. 23746 of 2023

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Heard Sri. Govindaraju K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Manjunath K., the learned HCGP appearing for the respondents.

¶27

The petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the

¶28

following prayers:

¶29

"(i). Issue a mandamus direction to the respondents not to interfere in the business of the petitioner including serving Hookah to its customers in smoking area in the schedule property.

¶30

(ii) Further direct the respondents not to insist upon the petitioner to obtain separate licence for serving Hookah in the schedule property.

¶31

(iii) Pass such other further relief by this Hon'ble court deems fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice."

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶33

would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench in the case of

¶34

MR. M.B. SHIVAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND

¶35

OTHERS.¹ , the Co-ordinate Bench has held as follows:

¶36

"Sri Govindaraj K. Joisa, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶37

1 W.P.No.30673/2019 disposed on 24.07.2019

¶38

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:38927 WP No. 23746 of 2023

¶39

Sri B.Balakrishna, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶40

2. The matter is taken up for hearing with the consent of the parties. It is heard finally.

¶41

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.

¶42

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:

¶43

“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.

¶44

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.”

¶45

¶46

NC: 2023:KHC:38927 WP No. 23746 of 2023

¶47

In that view of the matter, petitioner would be entitled for similar relief.

¶48

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.

¶49

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:

¶50

(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.

¶51

(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.

¶52

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

¶53

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:38927 WP No. 23746 of 2023

¶54

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.

¶55

Ordered accordingly."

¶56

In the light of the issue standing covered by the

¶57

judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench and the facts being

¶58

undisputed, the petition stands disposed on the same terms.

¶59

Ordered accordingly.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36 CT: THK

M/S Food Buffs LLP v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Food Buffs LLP 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Renuka Konaraddi Vs the Government of Karnataka

Sri Narayana Reddy Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri B N Rajkumar Vs Vinusha Kumar

Sri B M Subramanya Vs Canara Bank

Manappuram Finance Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Banashankari Trading Co. Vs the Principal Secretary