IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 8140 OF 2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
CLOUD CAFE VISHWAS D.S. (S/O) SURESH D.S. AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, “ADITHYA TOWER”, NO.626, 80 FEET ROAD, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, 4TH STAGE, NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE, RR NAGAR BBMP WEST (KARNATAKA) BANGALORE – 560 072 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560001 2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU – 560001 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU WEST, BENGALURU – 560094 4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, RR NAGAR, POLICE STATION, BENGALURU -560072 5. STATION HOUSE OFFICER/INSPECTOR, ANNAPURNESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 5 NOT TO INTERFERE IN THE LAW-FUL ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY THE PETITIONER IN THE SCHEDULE PREMISES OF THE PETITIONER.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and file memo of appearance in four weeks.
2. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking mandamus to the respondents not to interfere with the lawful activities carried on by the petitioner. The petitioner is stated to be running a Restaurant wherein the customers are permitted to smoke through Hookah. Since the respondents have interfered with the business of the petitioner, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The contentions as urged need not be adverted to in detail since in similar set of circumstances this Court in W.P.No.14226/2015 through the order dated 03.09.2015 had considered these aspects of the matter and ultimately held as under:
“4. If that be the position, the use of the instrument known as Hooka cannot be prohibited as long as such smoking is of Tobacco through the Hooka and no other prohibited substance is used. Therefore, if the said Hooka is used for any other illegal purpose, certainly the law enforcing authorities including the jurisdictional police would be entitled to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
5. Therefore, the only direction that is required to be issued in the instant petition to the respondents is not to insist upon the petitioner to obtain licence for the use of Hooka in the smoking zone provided by the petitioner in their premises, if such facility is provided only for smoking Tobacco through Hooka. However, if any credible information is received and in the process of monitoring, if any illegal activity is found including use of any banned substance, certainly the respondents or such other law enforcing authorities would be entitled to take action in accordance with law.”
5. In that view of the matter, the instant petition is also disposed of in similar terms by directing the respondents not to interfere with the legal activities of the petitioner. However, the liberty as indicated therein would be available to the competent authorities to proceed in accordance with law, if any illegal activities is found in the manner as stated above.
6. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE DR/MDS