Disposed

Suhana Tabassum v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Jan 2024WP/969/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus directing police to permit her hookah-related business per earlier High Court orders. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the order dated 20.12.2023 in W.P.No.34245 of 2023, which had directed the Commissioner of Police to examine the permission application under the Hyderabad City Police Act and COTP Act within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of order dated 20.12.2023 in W.P.No.34245 of 2023; no costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Suhana Tabassum Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32e61

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:969 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Suhana Tabassum, D/o. Shaik Hassan Aged about 37^years, Occ. Business ff,/o.^{H.No. 5-60/2,Saivihar Colony, PasmamullaVillage, Hayatnagar Mandal,} Hvderabad

¶9

...PETrroNER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶12

The Commissioner of Police, Office at LB Rachakonda, Telangana State

¶13

Assistant Commissioner of Police, Office at^LB Nagar, 4. The Station House Officer, Chaitanyapuri Police Station, Chaitanyapuri Telangana State

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^{praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court maybe} pleased to issue any Writ, order or direction more^particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents^{No.1to 4 not} giving the permission to run petitioner's business, Respondent No.4 as^per the Orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in WP.No.8223^{of 2013and common order} pass in this Writ petition and the representation had given to the Respondent No. 4 dated. 21 .12.2023 and inspite of that the^{RespondentNo 4 is not allowing} petitioner's and neither giving him the permission as^per the Hon'ble court order^as illegal, arbitrary and violation^principles of^{naturaljustice and consequently direct} the Respondent No.4 to consider^{petitioner's representationwhich he have given} on 21.12.2023 and allow^petitioner's to^{run the business.}

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶17

Petition unde r Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High courtmay be pleased to direct} the Respondent No.4 consider^{petitioner's representationwhich he have givenon} and allow him to run^{the businessand pass such other order pending disposalof} main Writ Petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Per:itioner:^{SRI HABEEBABUBAKAR ALHAMED} Counsel forthe Re;pondents:^{AGPFOR HOME}

¶19

The Court made thr:^{following: ORDER}

¶20

¶21

HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY}

¶22

qIRIT PETITIO N No.969 of2O24

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

When the^{matteris taken up for hearing, learned counsel} for the^{petitioner submitted that the issue raised in this writ} petition is squarely^{covered by the orderpassed by this Court in} W.P.No.34245^{of 2023,dated, 20'12'2023and therefore'the} present writ^{petition may be disposedof in terms of the said} order.^Le arned^{Assistant Government PleaderforHome} appearing for^{the respondents has not disputedthe said fact'}

¶25

In view of the^{abovesubmissions,this Writ Petitionis} disposed of^{in terms of the order, dated 20'12'2023 paSsedby} this Court^{in W.P.No.34245 of 2023' No costs'}

¶26

3 As a sequel,^{miscellaneous petitions pending,if any, shall}

¶27

stand closed.

¶28

SD/. K. V KAIAH ASSISTANT^RE STRAR

¶29

//TRUE^COPY//

¶30

SECTION^OFICER

¶31

To 1. The Principal^{Secretary Home DepartmentSecretariat'Hyderabad' State of}

¶32

, If;58%ilftissioner^{of Police,otficeat LB Rachakonda'Telangana State}

¶33

?.t;:tilll?'ilIxli;'am.::3;5,",;?S",:,il,o}3.nf,.6",chaitanvapuri

¶34

. l?383i3^{3Fl?ott=tABUBAKARALHAMED'.Advocate [oPUC]} 6 Two CCs to^{GP FoR H5fiE:frGn io"t tot the State of Telangana' at} Hyderabad. [OUTI

¶35

, IXi3""nofr.fl"t"opy^{or u," orderin wp.No.34245of 2o23with the present} order)

PSK GJP

-a^

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 110112024

ORDER
o F T E(4
e
WP.No.969 <tf 20242024 o
a)
..$. *
c q' (/
LL <br>€
J c l-l +

¶41

WP.No.969 <tf 20242024

¶42

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶43

tnbL
Gqiu
')r'--
Gsv

¶44

t '..,r,,-'
+;::t-.: -"r qii..

¶45

ti. i

¶46

HON'BLE SRI WSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.34245 of 2o23

¶47

ORDER:

¶48

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶49

"...to issue a Writ of Maldamus or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or Orders declaring the action of respondents, more particularly respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein in not considering Permission Application, daLed 04.12.2023 submitted by Petitioner seeking permission specifying smoking area in Petitioner's Restaurant and CaJe i.e., M/s. HASHTAG CAFE LOUNGE in premises Municipal No.3-5-878, Indrani Complex, Narayanaguda, opposite Old MLA Quarters,^{Hyderabad-S0o29pursuant to Judgment of} tlris Court in W.P.No.4304 of 2023 and batch matters pertarning to Hookah parlour as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and against to the Principles of Natura.l Justice and Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider Petitioner's Permission Application dated 04.12.2023 specifying smoking area in Petitioner's Restaurant and Cafe i.e., M/s. HASHTAG CAFE LOUNGE in premises bearing Municipal No.3-5-878, Indrani Complex, Narayanaguda, opposite Old MLA Quarters,^{Hyderabad-Soo29atdpass suchother} reliefs..."

¶50

The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that he has submitted an application, dated 04.12.2023 seeking sanction of permission for running hookah centre in the name and style of M/s. Hashtag Cafe Lounge, but the respondents are not acting upon the same and^passing I^{appropriate orders}

¶51

¶52

This Court, uide order, dated 15.11.2023 while

¶53

disposing c,f W.P.No.8223 of 2Ol3 and batch has issued the

¶54

following d. rections:

¶55

"24. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that Lmposing of certain conditions to run the Hookah Centres would meet t re ends of justice.

¶56

i) As Clharcoal is being used for serving hookah in the Hookah Centres, tl.e petitioners shall obtain licence from the Municipal Corporation zLs specified under Section 521(1)(b) of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Co.poration Act, 1955.

¶57

ii) Sin:e the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli confers power over the amusement Centres/ restaurarts which are defrned as "public place' under the COTP Act and as per Rule 4 of the Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places Rules, 2008 permission is required specifying srroking area. Therefore, to establish hookah centres, the petitioners shall obtain necessary permission from the concerned authority under the provisions of the City Police Act.

¶58

iii) The Hookah Centres are prohibited from serving any tobacco product to the persons below the age of eighteen years. Pictorial health-warnir g labels at the entrance must be displayed.

¶59

iv) Thr, respondents-police are at liberty to supervise arrd inspect the Hookah Centres, for any violation of rules and regu.lations, guidelines or circulars issued under the provisions of the Hyderabad City Police Ac1 , 1348 Fasli.

¶60

v) If thr re is any violation of the provisions of the COTP Act and the Rules made thereunder, the respondents-police are at'liberty to take approprirLte acLion as per the provisions of the COTP Act.

¶61

Slubject to fulfrlling the above conditions and also the provisions of COTP Act, the respondents-police are directed not to interfere \Mith the business activity of ttre petitioners for running Hookah Centres. If the police are found to act in a highhanded rnanner, the owners of the Hookah Centres are at liberty to bring the same to the notice of the Director General of Police/Commissioner of

¶62

¶63

Police, as directed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3202 of 2Ol4 and. batch, in which event the said authority shall forthwith take necessar5r steps in that regard."

¶64

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that as per the directions of this Court in W.P.No.8223 of 2Ol3 and batch, Director General of Police/ Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and also Greater Hyderabad Municipal Commissioner have conferred with the power to examine the representation/ application submitted by the petitioner for granting permission to run Hookah centres. Learned counsel prayed this Court to direct the Commissioner of Police to examine the application/representation, dated 04.12.2023 submitted by the petitioner in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.8223 ol 2Ol3 and batch, dated 15. 11.2023.

¶65

In view of the said submissions, this Court, deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing respondent No.2 i.e the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, to examine the application/ representation, dated 04.12.2023 submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with the provisions of the Hyderabad City Police

¶66

¶67

¶68

Act, 1348 Fasli and also as per the provisions of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco products (prohibition of Advertiserr ent and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (for short COTP Act, 2OO3) and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of four (4) weeks from today, if the petitioner complies with the conditions imposed br this Court in W.p.No.g223 of 2013, dated t5.11.2023.

¶69

With the above observations, this Writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶70

7 As a s;equel, the miscellareous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶71

20.t2.2023 rev/tu

¶72

JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶73

Suhana Tabassum v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suhana Tabassum v. The State of Telangana

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

Shireesha Mahankali Vs The State of Telangana

Kunwar Adil Rizwan Khan Vs The State Of Telangana

Pumpum Vincent Vijay Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Indus Towers Limited Vs The State of Telangana

Sadhineni Srinivas Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Ramavath Srinuvas Nayak Vs The State of Telangana