Lunar Loft Cafe and Kitchens Vs The State of Telangana

LUNAR LOFT CAFE AND KITCHENS, H.No.B-7-89lClP-V2, Plot No.2 Part, Chaitanya Nagar, B.N. Reddy X Road, B.N. Reddy Nagar, Rangareddy, Telangana State, Rep. by its Owner, Veeresh Reddy Guthikonda S/o Guthikonda Raghava Reddy, aged about.27 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.5-1-214,661 1, Abeer Reddy Gudem, Garedpally, Suryapet District, Telangana State.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Office at Gachibowli, Hyderabad

¶14

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, LB Nagar, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Telangana State.

¶15

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vanasthalipuram Division, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Telangana State.

¶16

The Station House Officer, Vanasthalipuram Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Vanasthalipuram, Telangana State.

¶17

Special Operations Team (SOT), LB Nagar, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Telangana State.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS direct the Respondents herein to allow the Petitioner to earmark his designated smoking area as per the COTPA Act and to allow his

¶20

clientele to use the same as they^please as long as they are^{followingthe same} COTPA Act 2003 in the name and style as LUNAR LOFT CAFE and KITCHENS, H.No.8-7-89/ClP-ll 2, PLOT NO.2 PART, Chaitanya Nagar, B.N. Reddy X Road, B.N. Reddy Nagar, Rangareddy, Telangana State, without reference to rule, law or regulations as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the^provisions of COTP Act and consequently direct the Respondents to^permit the Petitioner to continue his business of serving flavoured Hookahs in his shop in the name and style as LUNAR LOFT CAFE and KITCHENS, H. No . 8-7-89 I Cl P-ll 2, PLOT NO.2 PART, Chaitanya Nagar, B.N. Reddy X Road, B.N. Reddy Nagar, Rangareddy, Telangana State, without any hindrance or restrictions, in the interest of^justice.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents more particularly the Respondent No.5 and 6 herein not to interfere with the Coffee Shop Business of the Petitioner running under the name and style as 'as LUNAR LOFT CAFE & KITCHENS H.No.8-7-89/C/P-l/2, PLOT NO.2 PART, Chaitanya Nagar, B N Reddy X Road, B N REDDY NAGAR, Rangareddy, Telangana, Rep.by its owner, Veeresh Reddy Guthikonda S/o Guthikonda Raghava Reddy Occ: Business, aged about: 27 years, PJo H.No.5-1214,6611 , Abeer Reddy Gudem Garedpally, Suryapet, in serving flavoured Hookahs to his customers, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI HABEEB ABUBAKAR ALHAMED

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents No.^'l to 6: SRI M. SRINIVAS, AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

t:

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.19968 of 2025

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This writ petition is filed seeking following prayer:-

¶29

"to direct the Respondents herein to nllout the Petitiotur to earmark his designated smoking aren as Wr tlv COTPA Act and to allow his clienteb to use the same as they plense as long as tluy are following the same COTPA Act 2003 in tfu nnme anrl style as TUNAR LOFT CAFE and KITCHENS, H.No.8-7-89/UP-12, PLOT NO.2 PART, Chaitanya Nagar, B.N Reddy X Road, B.N Reddy Nagar, Rangareddy, Telangana Stnte, uithout reference to rule law or reguLations as illegal arbitrary unconstitutional antl contrary to the prouisions of COTP Act and consequently direct the Respondents to Wnnit^{the Petitioner to continue ltis businessof seruing} flaooured Hookals in his shop in the name and shfe as LUNAR LOFT CAFE and KITCHENS, H.No.8789/C/P-1p., PLOT NO.2 PART, Chaitanya Nagar, B.N Reddy X Rond, B.N Reddy Nagar, Rangareddy, Tel,angana Stnte uilhout any hindrance or restrictions in the interest of^justice."

¶30

Brief facts stated in this writ petition are that petitioner is a coffee shop running under the name and stylc of M/s.LUNAR LOFT CAFE and KITCFIENS at H.No.8-7-89/C/P-l/2, Plot No.2 Part, Chaitanya Nagar, B.N Reddy X Road, B.N Redtly Nagar, Rangareddy, Telangana State. It is stated that the petitioner, having acquired the necessary permission from the Govemment of India, Labour Department and Grcater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, is running thc said business from past six year. It is further stated that the said shop is also serving hooka to the customers. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent Nos.2 and^{4 throughpress,} declared that all hookah centers should voluntarily shut^{downotherwisethey} will^seize equipment and seal thc shops. Further^case of^{the petitioner} is that the

I

2

i

respondent authorities are entering the petitioner's business premises and^are threatening to seize the coffee shop'material and seal the same. Aggrieved^by the same, this writ petition is filed.

¶35

Today when the matter has been taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 08.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.15944 of 2022, relevant portion is extracted hereunder:-

¶36

"6. Though the Act iloes not contemplate nny licence to be taken, in the brger interest of the youngstcrs, uho are trisit':;rg tlu laoknh centres, the restaurant oumers shall haoe a defnite place for hookah / smoking. The restaurant owners, who are haoing a separate plae for smoking and.for hnkah mnsumption, slull inform the same to the Station Hou* Officcr, so tlut they can haz,e sun eillance on the actiaities that are t*ing placz in the said place and zohetler the business is carried out as Wr the norms and the procedure laitl doun under the AcL Polie under thc guix of tlis, slnll not harass the persons running thex centers without follotoitg the procedure. The oficers, who are ampetznt alone can enter the premises. If therc is nnq high-haniled action on the part of the police, the snnte slnll be brought to the notice of thz higher authoitizs and they shnll cause enquiry itto the same and take appropriate action.

¶37

7 . The Wit Petitbn is accordingly, dispoxd of. No ord.er as to costs."

¶38

Relying on the above, learned counsel for the petitioner pray this Court to grant liberty to petitioner to make representation before the respondent Police and seek permission to serve hookah at his caie.

¶39

Sri.M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Govcrnment Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6 pray this Court to pass appropriate order

¶40

6 Heard and perused the material availablc on record. On perusal of record, it noticed that the petitioner had placed a copy of registration

¶41

J

¶42

/

¶43

c€rtificate of Form GST issued by the Govemment of India and a copy of Trade license issued by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, under Section 521 and 622 of HMC Act.

¶44

At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the paragraph No.5 of the order dated

¶45

08.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.159M of 2022 and the same is extracted hereunder:-

¶46

"5. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the fact that police have the lnwer to regulate smoking in a public place in the manner specified as provided under Sections 4 & 12 of the Act. In some cases, the owners of the restaurants contend that they have licerce from GHMC. Though they hove a trade licence from GHMC, ultimately, as per the power conferred under the Ac4 it is the respective police who have the authority to regulate and monitor. Further, the object of the Acl is lo prohibit consumption of cigarette and other tobacco products which are injurious to health and in the larger interest of improving lhe public health, as per Article 47 of the Constitution of India which deals with the duty of the State to protect the public health. It is also observed that most of the reslaurants which obtained trade licence for the purpose of running a restauranl or cafeleria ore converling the some into hookah parlours for running hookah centres. As per Section I of the Act, a seporate plctce is required to be mointained Jbr restourdnts which have the capacity of 30 seots, thar ipso,facto will not give any right to the restaurant ow ers to run the hookah parlours. At the place of smoking, except smohng, no other service shall be allowed und if bosing on the permission granted for a restourant, they are only running hookah centres, the authorities have a right to cancel lhe licence. lnvariably, the police have to have constanl check and control whether lhe concerned are following the provisions of the Act and the Rules and whether they are displaying statutory and pictoriul ++,arning nolices. As^per S€ction l2 of the COTP Act, the police not helo\l the rank d Sub-lnspector or any oficer of State Food <tr Drug A<lministration or any' other oficer, holding the equivalent rank being nor bclou' the rank of Sub-lnspector of Police, authorised by the Central Governmcnt or by the State Government can inspect any building.¹ⁿ "1911,^{oJ'the sarne,lhere cdnnot} be any direction from this^('ourt tu^{thcrcspondents} not to^visithookah centres of the petitioner. It has conte to light that under the guise of hookah parlour, in some cascs. thc)' are gt:lting lhe cusktmers used to the other narcotic drugs. Even on thut^ground olso. there should be constant surveillance and check b1, the police.^'l'here should be a fine balance from the respondent polica^v,hare they can only interfere in lhe business when there is a slulutul t'iolalion or any incidcnts that ore contrary to low are taking pla<e in the said premises, but under the guise d it, the police just likc thctt cannot harass the persons who are runnin! the hookah cenrras. t/ therc is any high-handa<t uction on the part oj the officer, the sanrc cotl be brought to the notice of the higher

¶47

f

¶48

4

¶49

authorities and the higher authorities shall tal<e appropriate action. The petitioner shall earmark exclusively a separate area with appropriate enclosure in the hotel premhes and no other area or portion of the premises ,shall be used by the customers of the petitioner for smoking hookoh. "

¶50

B. It is also relevant to refer to the common order dated 15.11.2023 passed in

¶51

W.P.Nos.8223 of 2013 and batctr, relevant portion is extracted hereunder:-

¶52

" ii) Since the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli confers power over the amusement Centres/restaurants which are defined as^"public place" under the COTP Act and as per Rule 4 of the Prohibition of Smoking in Public Places Rules, 2008 permksion is required specifying smoking area. l'herefore, to establish hoofuh centres, the pelitioners shall obtain necessary permissionfrom the concerned authority under the provisions of the City Police Act."

¶53

t{aving considered the above facts and circumstances and recording the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to petitioner to make representation before the respondent Police, seeking permission to serve hookah at his cafe and in the light of order dated 08.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.15944 of 2022 and common trrder dated 75.77.2023 passed in W.P.Nos.8Z of 2013. respondent authorities are directed to pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with lau, and communicate the same to the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court had not expressed any opinion on tJre merits of thc case, it is for the rcspondcnt authorities to pass appropriate orders for permission strictly in accordance with law. Needless to say that the respondent authorities shall follow due procedure as contemplated under law before initiating any action against the petitioner.

5

t I

i