Disposed

M/S Pup Cafe v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Oct 2023WP/7782/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition seeking non-interference in a restaurant's lawful hookah smoking activities. The court directed police to not harass the petitioner for inspections but allowed action if banned substances are found, referencing a prior PNB Ventures judgment.

What did the court decide?

Police authorities not to insist on licensing or harass petitioner; allowed periodical inspections with notice; petitioner must obtain licence for exclusive separate hookah area; police can take actio

M/S Pup Cafe Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:36279 WP No. 7782 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 7782 OF 2023 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. PUP CAFÉ, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, D NO.129/18 OFFICE ROAD, VIDYARATHNA NAGAR, SHIVALLI VILLAGE, MANIPAL, UDUPI - 576 104, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SUHAS SHETTY, S/O SANTOSH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT 6-2-66, KAMBLA KODAVOOR, TENKANIDYOOR, UDUPI - 576 106, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF FOOD SERVICE RESTURANT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. PRADYUMNA M, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OLD DC OFFICE ROAD, BANNANJE CIRCLE, BANNANJE, UDUPI - 576 101.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:36279 WP No. 7782 of 2023

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER, UDUPI CITY MUNICIPALITY, UDUPI - 576 101.

¶18

STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MANIPAL POLICE STATION, MANIPAL - 576 104.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K, HCGP)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO INTERFERE IN THE LAWFUL ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THE PETITIONER IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE PETITIONER AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

¶25

Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for all the respondents.

¶26

The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of food services restaurant providing space for smoking hookah. The petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-police authorities not to

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:36279 WP No. 7782 of 2023

¶28

interfere with the business of the petitioner including the service of hookah to its customers in the smoking area, within the shop premises. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that along with the memorandum of the writ petition, three judgments of this Court have been furnished, wherein directions have been given to the respondent police authorities not to interfere in the course of the business, since it is not a prohibited activity.

¶29

Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that in a subsequent decision in the case of PNB Ventures Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.23275/2022 dated 30.05.2018, two additional conditions were imposed on what was earlier directed in the earlier matter. The High Court Government Pleader would therefore submit that the writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the directions issued in the case of PNB ventures (Supra).

¶30

In that view, a similar benefit is required to be extended to the petitioner also. Hence, it is directed that the

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:36279 WP No. 7782 of 2023

¶32

respondent shall not insist upon the petitioner to obtain licence for the use of Hookah in the smoking zone provided by the petitioner if such facilities is provided only for the purpose of smoking Tobacco through Hookah in accordance with law. However, if any credible information is received by the respondents or in the process of monitoring if any illegal activities are found including the use of banned substance, certainly the respondents or such other Law Enforcing Authorities would be entitled to take action in accordance with law.

¶33

The writ petition stands disposed of in the following terms:

¶34

(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 hookah smoking and no other area or portion of premise shall be used by the customers of the petitioner for smoking hookah.

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:36279 WP No. 7782 of 2023

¶36

(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.

¶37

Ordered accordingly.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

rv CT: BHK

M/S Pup Cafe v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Pup Cafe 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

The Amanath Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Mohammed Sharfuddin

Sri S Narasimha Bharathi Vs State of Karnataka Department of

Pushkraj Crushing Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Senior Divisional Engineer

M/S. Highway - 66 Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.K.R.Gangadarappa Vs State of Karnataka

Secon Private Limited Vs Executive Engineer