Allowed

Eleven & Co. v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Mar 2023WP/9476/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Petition was allowed. The Court issued mandamus directing respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's business, including serving hookah in a designated smoking zone, holding that COTPA permits smoking in such areas and no separate hookah license is required.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is allowed; a mandamus is issued directing the respondents not to interfere with the business or require a separate hookah license in compliance with COTPA.

Eleven & Co. Vs State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 9476 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.9476 OF 2017 (LB-BMP)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

ELEVEN & CO NO.284, 4^TH FLOOR 100 FT. RING ROAD 4^TH PHASE, 7^TH BLOCK BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE BENGALURU-560085 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR SURAJ KUMAR S

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. BASAVANAGOUDA PATIL., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU CITY, INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU-560001

¶14

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE 1^ST FLOOR, 9^TH MAIN ROAD T R NAGAR, BSK II STAGE BENGALURU-560070

¶15

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER 17^TH MAIN, 27^TH CROSS BSK II STAGE BENGALURU-560070

¶16

¶17

WP No. 9476 of 2017

¶18

THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER J C ROAD BANGALORE-560002

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SANTOSH KUMAR M.B., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. N.R. JAGADEESHWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY ORDERS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO INTERFERE IN THE BUSINESS OF THE PETITIONER, INCLUDING SERVING OF HOOKAH TO ITS CUSTOMERS IN THE DESIGNATED SMOKING ZONE OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND ETC.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶25

a. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any Orders directing the respondents not to interfere in the business of the petitioner, including serving of Hookah to its customers in the designated smoking zone of the schedule property.

¶26

b. Further direct the respondents not to insist upon the Petitioner to obtain a separate license for serving Hookah in the schedule property.

¶27

c. To award costs of this petition.

¶28

d. Pass any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶29

¶30

WP No. 9476 of 2017

¶31

The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner

¶32

is running the business of the restaurant wherein hookah services would also be provided. A trade licence having been issued, the respondents are seeking to interfere with the said business. It is stated that the hookah being a tobacco product, the same is covered by Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply & Distribution) Act, 2003 (for short, ‘COPTA), which deals with smoking in public places. The public place being defined under sub-Clause (l) of Section 3 of COTPA Act, smoking is permitted in a designated area in a restaurant.

¶33

Insofar as providing of hookah in the present matter is concerned, it is contended that the said hookah is made available in a designated place and as such, there is compliance with the COTPA. In that background the above said reliefs are sought for.

¶34

¶35

WP No. 9476 of 2017

¶36

Having taken into consideration the applicability of COTPA and the field insofar as tobacco is concerned being governed by the COTPA, the Municipal Corporation would not have any jurisdiction over the matter more so when smoking is permitted under the COTPA in designated places. Considering that the petitioner has complied with the requirement under the COTPA, the Corporation cannot seek to stop smoking in the restaurant by the customers of a restaurant in the designated smoking zone, of course the restaurant/Petitioner would be under an obligation to ensure that smoking is not permitted otherwise than in the designated area. As such, I pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38