M/s.Park Vue Vs The State of Telangana

M/s.PARK VUE, Proprietorship Firm, Having its Business Place at D.No.B-1 and 8-2, 5th Floor, lvlathura Nagar, Raidurg, Navkhalsa Village. Gachibowli, Serilingampally IVlandal, Ranga Reddy District Rep.by its Proprretor Mohammed Abdul Arif Nawab. Sio,Mohammed Abdul Basith Parvaz, Aged about 43 yrs, Occ Business, R/o.D No.10-5-612O4, I'Ay Home Glory Apartments, South A Block, Masab Tank, Asifnagar, Hyderabad - 500 028, Telangana.

¶10

..-PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

The Director General of Police, , Lakdikapool, Telangana State, Hyderabad,

¶14

3.' The Commisisoner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Gachibowli, Cyberabad

¶15

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kukatpally Zone, Kukatpally, Cyberabad,

¶16

The Station House Officer, Raidurgam P.S. Cyberabad,

¶17

The Special Operatron Team (SOT), Rep.by its Station House Officer. Kukatpally Zone. Kukatpally, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

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 writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents particularly Respondent No-5 and 6 in interfering with the petitioners lawful business activity in the name and style of M/s.PARK VUE situated at D.No.B-1 and B-2, 5th Floor, Mathura Nagar, Raidurg, Navkhalsa Village, Gachibowli, Serilingampally Mandal. Ranga

¶20

,

¶21

Reddy District in serving the flavoured hookah without their being any. contravention of COTP Act. 2003, without reference to any rule regulations or law by the Respondents as illegal, arbitrary and in violative of Articles 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of lndia apaft from being violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondents Police particularly Respondents No.5 and 6 to permit the petitioner to continue its business of serving flavoured hookahs in his business place without any hindrance or restrictions in the interest of^justice.

¶22

lA NO:^'1 OF 2026

¶23

Petition under Section 1 51 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 Respondent No 5 & 6 not to interfere with business activity of the Petitioner in the name and style of "tt/is PARK VUE situated at D No.8-'l and B-2, 5th Floor Mathura Nagar, Raidurg Navkhalsa Village, Gachibowli, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distrrct.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI NADELLA VENKATESWARA RAO

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI MAHESH RAJE, GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

n

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.2975 OF 2026

DATE: 02.02.2026

Between:

M/s.Park Vue

Rep.by its Proprietor [\rlohammed Abdul Arif Nawab

¶34

...Petitioner

¶35

AND

¶36

The State of Telangana and Others

¶37

...Respondents

¶38

ORDER

¶39

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

¶40

"...to lssue order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents pafticularly Respondent No.s and 6 in interfering with the petitioners lawfu! buslness activity in the name and style of M/s.PARK VUE situated at D.No.8-1 and 8-2, Sth Floor, Mathura Nagar, Raidurg. Navkhalsa Village. Gachibowli, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in serving the flavoured hookah without their being any contravention of COTP Act, 2003. without reference to any rule regulations or law by the Respondents as illegal, arbttrary and in violative of Atticles 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of lndia apad from being violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondents Police pafticularly Respondents No 5 and 6 to permit the petitioner to continue lls buslness of serving flavoured hookahs rn his bustness^place without any hindrance or restrictions in the interest of^justice andtopass...^"

¶41

2. I have heard Mr. Nadella Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for

¶42

the petitioner and Mr.Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader^for

¶43

Home, appearing on behalf of the respondents

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner^pleads that seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner to continue his business on serving flavoured Hookah without any hindrance or restriction except under law, this petition has been filed. The respondent police authorities are interfering in the name of regulation and imposing unreasonable restrictions without any lawful authority Therefore, he prayed for necessary directions

¶45

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, submits that the act of serving Hookah necessarily implies the supply of tobacco products. However, the nature of the substances being used in the preparation of flavoured Hookah has not been clearly specified by the petitioner. Apart from certain vague assertions, no specific particulars have been furnished as to the alleged manner of interference by the respondent authorities. However. fairly concedes that in similar matters this Court has directed petitioners/business establishments to comply with certain conditions, and upon such compliance, the respondent police authorities were directed not to interfere with their business activities. ln view of the above. he prays that appropriate orders be passed in the instant matter

¶46

I have perused the material on record

¶47

_l

¶48

n

¶49

The petitioner is running a Hookah Centre under the name and style of^'M/s.Park Vue situated at D No.8-1 and 8-2, 5th Floor, Mathura Nagar, Raidurg, Navkhalsa Village, Gachibowli,Serilingampally lVlandal, Ranga Reddy District' and contends that the respondent police authorities, without any legal prescription, are interfering with his business of serving flavoured Hookah

¶50

7 ln this context, it is pertinent to note that a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P. No. 1 5944 of 2022 decided on 08.12.2022, examrned the question as to whether a licence is required for running a Hookah Center under the provisions of lhe Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Adveftisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Ac| 2003^('COTP Act ) and upon due consideration, recorded its conclusion in the following terms

¶51

"Though the Act does not contemplate any licence to be taken, in the larger interest of the youngsters, who are visiting the hookah centres. the restaurant owners shall have a definite place for hookah / smoking. The restaurant owners, who are having a separate place for smoking and for hookah consumption, shall inform the same to the Station House Officer, so that they can have surveillance on the activities that are taking place in the said^place and whether fhe business^ls carried out as per the norms and the^procedure laid down under the AcL Police under the^guise of this, shall not harass^the

¶52

4

¶53

persons running these centres without following the procedure. The officers, who are competent alone can enter the^premtses. lf there is any high-handed action on the^part of the^police. the same sha// be brought to the nottce of the higher authorities and they shall cause enquiry into the same and take appropiate action."

¶54

B Furthermore in an analogues matter. this Court issued certain directions and. upon compliance by the petitioner, restrained the respondent police from interfering vrith the petitioner's business. For ready reference, the relevant directions are reproduced hereunder

¶55

"ln the light of the interim order granted by this Court in identical matters, there shall be an order alike in this matter also rn the following terms.

¶56

lf the petitioner rnsfa//s video cameras, either open or concealed, records its operations and also undeftakes to preserve the recordings for a minimum of fifteen days peiod, so that the police, in case of susprcion or necessity, can replay lhe footage and examine as to whether any undesirable elements or young persons in conflict with law are frequently visiting the petitioner's cafd for hookah, the petitioner's cafd may be permitted to carry on its operations. Learned Assislanf Government Pleader for Home would suggesf thaf:

¶57

i) The Hookah centres shall not be kept open beyond 11.00 p.m. for its customers,

¶58

ii) They must necessarily exhibit the signboard that they are Hookah centres; and

¶59

iii) They must also exhibit the notice board that children below the age of 18 are not liable to be enteftained as guests, even for any other recreational purpose including consumption of coffee inside the Hookah Centres."

¶60

That apart, a batch of Writ^petitions filed by persons similarly

¶61

placed as the petitionerwas considered in W.p. No. g223 of 2013 and

l

.a

-,

connected matters, decided on 15.11.2023, concerning the operation of hookah centers. The relevant portion of the said^judgment is extracted hereunder for ready reference

¶66

"ln view of the above discusslon. this Court is of the opinion that imposing of cerlain conditions to run the Hookah Cenlres would meet the ends of^justice.

¶67

i) As Charcoal is being used for serving hookah in the Hookah Centres, the petitioners shall obtain licence from the Municipal Corporation as specified under Section 521(1)(b) of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation AcL 1955.

¶68

ii) Since the Hyderabad City Police Ac[ 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 perrnission is required specifing smoking area. Therefore, to establish hookah centres, the petitioners shall obtain necessary permission from the concerned authority under the^provisions of the City Police Act.

¶69

ii|. The Hookah Centres are prohibited from seruing any tobacco product to the persons below the age of eighteen years. Pictorial health-warning labels at the entrance must be displayed.

¶70

iv). The respondents-police are at libefty to supervise and inspect the Hookah Centres, for any violation of^rules and regulations,^guidelines or circulars issued under the provisions of the Hyderabad City Police Ac| 1348 Fasli.

¶71

v). lf there is any violation of the^provisions of the COTP Act and the Rules made thereunder,^the respondents-police are at libefty to take appropriate action as per the provisions of the COTP Act.

¶72

6

¶73

Subject to fulfilling the above conditions and also the provisions of COTP Act, the respondents-police are directed not to interfere with the busrness activity of the petitioners tor running Hookah Centres lf the police are found to act in a highhanded manner, the owners of the Hookah Cenlres are at libefty to bring the sarne to the notice of the Director General of Police/Commissioner of Police, as directed by this Couft in Writ Petition No 3202 of 2014 and batch. in which event the said authority shall forlhwith take necessary sfeps ln that regard."

¶74

10 ln view of the settled legal principles discussed hereinabove, and there being no distinguishing features or exceptional circumstances brought to the notice of this Court warranting a deviation, it is considered^just and appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition by directing the petitioner to strictly comply with the following dlrections

¶75

l The business place must necessarily exhibit the signboard that they are Hookah Centres;

¶76

rl They must also exhibit the notice board that children below the age of 18 are not liable to be entertained as guests, even for any other recreational purpose including consumption of coffee inside the Hookah Centres.

¶77

rr The Hookah Centres shall not be kept open beyond 11.00 p.m. for its customers;

¶78

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

l,

7

I l

I I

y. lf the petitioner shall install video cameras, either open or concealed, records its operations and shall preserve the recordings for a minimum of thirty days period, so that the police, in case of suspicion or necessity, can replay the footage and examine as to whether any undesirable elements or young persons in confhct with law are frequently vrsiting the petitioner's caf6 for hookah.

¶84

As Charcoal is being used for serving hookah in the Hookah Centres, the petitioner shall obtain license from the Municipal Corporation as specified under Section 521(1)(b) of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.

¶85

v/. Since the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1 348 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, permission is required specifying smoking area Therefore, to establish hookah centres, the petitioner shall

¶86

. obtaln necessary permission from the concerned authority under the provisions of the City Police Act.

¶87

viii. The respondents-police are at liberty to supervise and inspect the Hookah Centres, for any violation of rules and regulations, guidelines or circulars issued under the provisions of the Hyderabad City Police Act, 1348 Fasli,

¶88

x. lf there is any violation of the provisions of the COTP Act and the Rules made thereunder, the respondents-police are at liberty to take appropriate action as per the provisions of

¶89

-- the COTP Act

¶90

S

¶91

Subject to the petitioner's strict compliance with the conditions stipulated hereinabove, and with the provisions of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 ('COTP Act'), the respondent police authorities are directed not to cause any interference in the lawful business activities of the petitioner. ln the event of any deviation by the petitioner, it shall be open to the respondent police authorities to initiate and pursue appropriate proceedings in accordance with law

¶92

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶93

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶94

SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA SISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat Burldtngs Hyderabad. Telangana.

¶99

2 The Director General of Police, Lakdikapool, Telangana State, Hyderabad, 3 The Commrsisoner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Gachibowli, Cyberabad

¶100