"5. There cannol be any dispute with regard to the fact that police have the power 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 restaurdnts contend that they have licence from GHMC. Though they have a lrade licence fron GHMC, ultimately, as per the power conferred under the Act, it is the respective police who have the authority to regulate and monitor. Further, the object of the Act is to prohibit consumption of cigarette and other tobacco products which are injurious to health and in the larger inlerest of improving the public health, as per Article 17 of the Constitution of India which deals with lhe duty of the State to protect the public health. It is also observed that most of the restaurqnts v,hich obtained trade licence for the purpose of running a reslaur(tnl or cafeteria are converting the same into hookah parlours for running hooknh centres. As per Section 4 of the Act, a separate place is required to be maintained for restaurants which have lhe capacity of 30 seats, that ipso facto will not give any right to the restauront owners to run the hookah parlours. At the place of smohng, except smoking, no other service shall be allowed and if basing on the permission granted for a restouranl, they are only running hookah centres, lhe authorities have a right lo cancel the licence. Invariably, the police have to have constant check and control whelher the concerned are following tha provisions of the Act and the Rules and whether they are displaying statutory and pictorial warning nolices. As per Section l2 oJ the COTP Act, the police not below the rank of Sub-lnspector or any officer of State Food or Drug Administration or any olher offcer. holding the equivalent rank being not below the rank ofSub-lnspector of Police, authorised by the Central Government or by the State Governmenl can inspecl any building. ln view of the same, lhere cannol be any directionj-om this Courl to the respondenls nol lo visit hookah ccntres of the petitioner. It hx come to light that under the guise of ho<tkah parlour, in some cases, they are getting the customers used to lhe other narcolic drugs. Even on that ground also, there should be constant surveillance and check by lhe police. There should be a fine balance from the respondent police where they can only interfere in lhe business when lhere is(t statutory violation or sny incidenls tlrut ore conlrary lo lav, are toking place in the said premises, but under the guise of it, the police just like that cannot hqrass the persons who are running the hookah centres. If there is any high-handed oction on the part of the oficer, the same con be brought to the notice of the higher authorities and the higher authorities shall take appropriate action. The pelitioner shall carmark exclusivelyq separate area wilh appropriate enclosure in tlrc hotel prenises and no other area or portion of the premises shall be used b1, the customers of the petilioner for smoking hookah."
