M/s Backyard Coffee Lounge Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

[32s51

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶6

wRlT PETITION NO: 23994 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s Backyard Coffee Lounge, Situated at Premises No. 1-92122, Near OYO Mirras, Khanamet, lzzatnagar, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.Konisefty Manikanta

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, rep by its Principal Secretary Home Depa(ment, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Director General of Police, Telangana, Lakdikapool Police Head Quarters Hyderabad.

¶13

3 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad.

¶14

4 The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Madhapura, Cyberabad-

¶15

E The Station House Officer, Madhapur Police Station, Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of 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 declaring the action of the respondent No.5 in unlawful interference in running petitioner's business in the name and style of M/s Backyard Coffee Lounge situated at Premises No. 1-92122, Near OYO Mirras, Khanamet, lzzalnagar, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District as unlawful, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the business of the petitioner in serving flavored hookahs to their customers at his coffee shop namely M/s Backyard Coffee Lounge except in accordance with law.

¶18

.i.-i.^f:F , t:;t

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

Petition under Section 15't CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cotrrt may be pleased to direct the respondent No.5 not to interfere in the busine.ss being run by the petitioner in serving flavoured Hookah at their coffee shop, in adherence to the conditions stipulated by Apex Court and this Court pendinJ; disposal of the Writ Petition in the interest of justice.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHD ASIFUDDIN

¶22

Gounsel for the Respondents: SRI M.SRINIVAS, AGP FOR HOME

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

O

¶25

THE HONOUI{ABLE SITI IUSTICE N'V'SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶26

WI{IT PETITION No.23994 of 2025

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleaclcr for Home appoaring for respondent Nos.1 to 5 With their consent this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself

¶29

2. This writ pctition is [iled seeking following praycr:-

¶30

"to declnre tlp nctiott of tlrc rcsponfunt No.5 in unlaroful interference irL mnning pelitione r's business in the name and style of lt4/s Backynrd Coflee Lounge situnted at Premises No.L-92,0.2, Near OYO lt4irrus, Klnrutnrcl, I:zttnagnr, Serilingnn Lpnlly, Rangn Reddy Distict, as unlaruful, arbitrnnl and uiolatioe of Article 14 and^{'19 ('1)(g)} of tlrc Constituttort ol-lndirL nnd consequently direct tlu respondents not to interfere u,ith tle business of tlrc petitioner in sen ing flnt ored Inokahs to tlrcir urstorners at lis cffie shop namely M/s Backyard Coffee Lounge exccpL itt accordnnce toith Lmp."

¶31

Brief facts st;rted in this r'r,rit pelition are that petitioner is a coffee shop running in thc namc and str,lt'of N4/s.l3ackvard coffee [,ounge, earlier when the petitioner loungc was at premises No.2-56/33/19/ A/'1, Izzath Nagar, Khanamet, Kondapur, Serilingampally, Hyderabacl, the petitioner had fited W.P.No.1935 of 2023 and this CourL zrlde common order dated 15.11.2023 in W.P.No.8223 of 2013 and batch, passed the following order:-

¶32

"24. ln view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that imposing of certain conditions to run lhe Hoolsth Centres wot d meet the ends ofjuslice. i) As Churcoal is being used.for sert,ing hookah in the llookah Cenlre., lhe pelitioners sltull obtain liL'e nce Jiont the Municipal Corporation as speciJied under Section 521(l)(b) of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.

2

I I

iI

/

il Since the Hyderabad City police Act, t3,tg l'ttsli confers power over lhe amlsement Centres/reslaurtnts u,hich are delined as "1lublic place ' under the COTp Act arul as ner Rule 1 of rhe Prohibition of Smoking in public ptac,:s Ruies. 200g permission is required spectfling smoking arca^.['herefore, to establish hookah centre.s, the petitioners shall oLtain nace:jsary permission from lhc concerned authority under the prot,isioi;. of the City^police Acr.

¶38

iil The Hookah^(:entres ure prohibited front serving |ny tohacco product to tha persons belot:, the agc of e.ghteen t,ear.s Pictot i1l health-warning lohcls ut tht. c:nn.r, r.,: ,ru,st b" displayed.

¶39

ia) 'l'he respondents-police are at libert.y to supcrviv arul inspect the Hookah Cenlres, for any,violalion ofrL a.s antl regulations, guidelines or circulars issued under lhe pro ,isions o{ Ihe I{yderabad Ciry Police Act, 1 348 t-asti.

¶40

7l If there i;^ any yiolation of the prottisions o[ the r )Ol'p .lct ancl the Rule.r made thercuntjer, thc. yssp6n1lsnts ,oiicc dre dt libert), to take appropriate action as per the prttision.r of the COTP Act.

¶41

Subject to ful/illing the ahoye conditutn.y antl aLso tht ptovisions ctf C.OTP \ct, tltc respondents-police ure tlirecled not to irttufcre with the bus.iness activily of the pelitioners .fitr running lloolcth Centres. ![ the polica arc formd to act in o highhandctJ manier. the ovners of'thc Hookah Oentres are al libert.t) to bring the same to tht notit.c of thc Direclor General of Police/Commissioner of police, as. aircctctl by lhi,s Oourl in Wril Petilion No.3202 of 2011 und botclt. in y..hich et,ent thc said aulhority shall forthwith take necessary steps in tlrut regard )6. ,4cLordinyly.,sll tht:e Wrir Pcriri,,nt,re di.s1t,t:c,l ,t1.

¶42

4 Learncd counsel for the petitioner submits thilt thc petitioner on instructions of his landlord had vacated the premises :1o.2_56/33/19/A/-1, Izzath Nagar, Khanamet, Kondapur, Serilingampallv ar.rd shifted the lourrge at premises No.1-92/ 22, Near OyO Mirras, I(ranarnet, Izz,atnagar, Serilingampaily, Ranga Reddy District. Thc case of the petitioner is that though it has obtained all necessary pennission from various authorities to run its business and inspite of the common order datccl 7511.2023 passetl in 'v' W.P.No.8223 of 20i3 a.c1 batc[, thc respondcnt No.5 rs interferir.rg in the

¶43

3

¶44

business and is not allowing the petitioner to provide hookah in its shop

¶45

Aggrieved by the same, this n rit pctition is filed.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner. submits that in similar circumstance

¶47

this Court in W.l'.No.15283 of 2025 dated 28.05.2025, passed the following

¶48

order:-

¶49

"5. Considering the respectioe submissions, this rurit petition stands disposed of in ternts of tlrc Contmon order dated 15.11.2023 in W.P.No.822i of 2013 nnd bntch, ntd for the reasons alike. No costs. Miscellaneous petitiorts pending, if any, shall stand closed.',

¶50

Learned counsel for the petitioner further pray this Court to pass

¶51

similar orders as passccl in W.P.No.15283 of 2025 dated 28.05.2025.

¶52

l,earned Assistant Covcrnrncnt Pleader for Homc appearing for rcspondents did not disputc the samc.

¶53

B. Rccording the subrnission macle by the lear.ncd counsel appearing on either side and in terms of Cornmon ordcr clated 15.11.2023 in W.P.No.B223 of 2013 and batch, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent authoriLies not to interfere wiih the business activity of the petitioner for running Hookah Centre, subject to pctitioner fulfilling thc conclirions statccl in W.P.No.8223 of 2013 and batch dated 15.71.2023 and also thc provisions of COTp Act.

¶54