Dismissed

Mohammed Shabaz v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2023WP/24760/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking directions not to interfere with lawfully carried out hookah smoking activities in the petitioner's restaurant, this court disposed of the petition by directing respondents not to interfere with the activity provided only tobacco is used, relying on a co-ordinate bench judgment.

What did the court decide?

petition disposed on terms that respondents not to interfere with petitioner's law full activities and not to insist for license if only tobacco is smoked.

Mohammed Shabaz Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:41463 WP No. 24760 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 24760 OF 2023 (GM-POLICE)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MOHAMMED SHABAZ, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMAD ANWAR,

¶10

RESIDING AT NO.130, 17TH H MAIN ROAD, MIG 5TH BLOCK, KHB COLONY, BANGALORE - 560 095.

¶11

OWNER OF CENTRAL RESTARANT AND CAFE,

¶12

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

¶13

17TH H MAIN ROAD,

¶14

MIG 5TH BLOCK, KHB COLONY, BANGALORE - 560 095.

¶15

…PETITIONER

¶16

(BY SRI. M.C. NAGASHREE, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,

¶19

VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶20

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:41463 WP No. 24760 of 2023

¶21

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

¶22

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BANGALORE EAST, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE - 562 109.

¶23

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, SOUTH EAST KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 034.

¶24

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, MADIVALA, BANGALORE - 560 068.

¶25

STATION HOUSE OFFICER (PS), KORAMANGALA STATION, BANGALORE - 560 034.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH, HCGP)

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF

¶29

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 TO 6 NOT TO INTERFERE IN THE LAW FULL ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THE PETITIONER IN THE SCHEDULE PREMISES OF THE PETITIONER AND ETC.,

¶30

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

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:41463 WP No. 24760 of 2023

¶33

ORDER

¶34

Heard Sri. M.C. Nagashree, learned counsel appearing for

¶35

the petitioner and Sri. Manjunath, the learned HCGP appearing for the respondents.

¶36

The petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the

¶37

following prayers:

¶38

"WHEREFORE, the Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

¶39

a. Issue Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to 6 not to interfere in the law-full activities carried on by the petitioner in the schedule premises of the petitioner.

¶40

b. Direct the respondents not to insist for obtaining license under the Karnataka Police Act or any other Act to serve Hookah.

¶41

c. Direct the respondents not to interfere with the law full serving of Hookah.

¶42

d. Grant such other relief or reliefs as may deem fit to grant in the facts and Circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶43

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶44

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

¶45

¶46

NC: 2023:KHC:41463 WP No. 24760 of 2023

¶47

CLOUD CAFE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS.¹ , the

¶48

Co-ordinate Bench has held as follows:

¶49

" Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and file memo of appearance in four weeks.

¶50

2. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking mandamus to the respondents not to interfere with the lawful activities carried on by the petitioner. The petitioner is stated to be running a Restaurant wherein the customers are permitted to sinoke through Hookah. Since the respondents have interfered with the business of the petitioner, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶51

3. The contentions as urged need not be adverted to in detail since in similar set of circumstances this Court in W.P.No.14226/2015 through the order dated 03.09.2015 had considered these aspects of the matter and ultimately held as under:

¶52

"4. If that be the position, the use of the instrument known as Hooka cannot be we 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.

¶53

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."

¶54

1 W.P.No.8140/2017 disposed on 27.02.2019

¶55

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:41463 WP No. 24760 of 2023

¶56

5. In that view of the matter, the instant petition is also disposed of in similar terms by directing the respondents not to interfere with the legal activities of the petitioner. However, the liberty as indicated therein would be available to the competent authorities proceed in accordance with law, if any illegal activities is found in the manner as stated above.

¶57

6. The petition is accordingly disposed of."

¶58

In the light of the issue standing covered by the

¶59

judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench and the facts being undisputed, the petition stands disposed on the same terms.

¶60

Ordered accordingly.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63 CT: BHK

Mohammed Shabaz v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Shabaz v. the 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

T.S.Shivayya Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. M. Thanigachalam Vs the State of Karnataka

Hanumanthappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Vadika Jatla Vs Mr Hariprasad Thota

Sri Ashok D Sanadi Vs the Chief Secretary

Sri. Shreeram. M. J. Vs the Bank Manager