IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.51316/2019(GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
SMT. MANJULA DEVI J, W/O LOKESH C, AGED 31 YEARS, PROPRIETRIX, NUEVA PREMIUM CAFE, NO.2, INSIDE LOKESH HOUSE, KASABA HOBLI, MAYAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, AND POST, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562159.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI MALLA REDDY B. V., ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 2 . THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA-562159 3 . DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE RAMANAGARA SUB DIVISION, RAMANAGARA-562159 4 . THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE/ STATION HOUSE OFFICER RAMANAGARA RURAL CIRCLE, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562159.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M. VINOD KUMAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) …… THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO INTERFERENCE WITH THE LEGAL ACTIVITIES OF THE PETITIONER UNDER THE GUISE OF INSPECTION, RAIDS AND HARASS THE PETITIONER AT REGULAR AND PERIODICAL INTERVALS WITHOUT ANY NOTICE TO THE PETITIONER.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner filed the present writ petition for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents not to interfere with the legal activities of the petitioner under the guise of inspection, raids and not to harass the petitioner at periodical intervals without any notice.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner is a proprietrix, running the restaurant and café by obtaining registration under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 along with other required permissions and registrations under the GST Act, Labour Act, Shops and Establishments Act etc., in the name and style ‘NUEVA PREMIUM CAFE at No.134, The New Bangalore Club, Janatha Colony, Near Kenchanakuppa Gate, Bidadi, Ramanagara Taluk, Ramanagara District-562 109. To run the said firm, the petitioner has taken the land on rent basis. In the process of doing the business, the petitioner is providing beverages, food and snacks to the customers. The petitioner has earmarked a separate smoking zone in the said premises which is not connected with the space provided for serving food, beverages and snacks and in the said smoking zone, the customers are allowed to smoke. The petitioner has provided hookah smoking facility in the smoking zone.
3. When things stood thus, the respondents forcibly closed the facility of providing hookah stating that the said service provided by the petitioner is illegal and in violation of the rules. The petitioner submitted explanation stating that for running hookah bar, there is no need/necessity to obtain licence/permission from any authority under any law for the time being in force, as it is nothing but smoking the tobacco and tobacco products by inhaling the water vapour coming out of the hookah jar and the petitioner has been providing the said facility to the customers in the specific smoking zone provided for the said purpose in the premises. Inspite of the same, the respondents are interfering with the petitioner’s day to day business and therefore, filed the present writ petition for the relief sought for.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Sri B.V.Malla Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of writ petition, contended that the action of the respondents in interfering with the day to day business of the petitioner of running the restaurant and café is unjust and contrary to law. He further contended that providing hookah/smoking facility in a separate smoking zone in a restaurant or a place where the food is served is not prohibited under any law and more so, the petitioner is not required to obtain any special permission or licence under any law. Inspite of the same, the respondents are interfering with the day to day business of the petitioners. Therefore, sought to allow the writ petition.
6. Per contra, Sri M.Vinod Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that in the guise of the licence obtained to run the restaurant and café, the petitioner cannot misuse and indulge in any unlawful activities using the entire area to serve hookah and petitioner shall earmark exclusively an area with appropriate enclosure in the premises for the purpose of hookah smoking and no other area or portion of the premises shall be used by the customers of the petitioner for smoking hookah. If the petitioner has earmarked a separate area for smoking hookah, the question of interference by the respondents would not arise at all. The said submission is placed on record.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is the specific case of the petitioner that she is running the restaurant and café after obtaining licence from the concerned authorities and are not misusing the area for smoking hookah and they are not causing inconvenience to other customers who visit the restaurant and café. Smoking having been prohibited in public places, an exclusive area with separate enclosure requires to be reserved for smoking hookah.
8. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed off, with the following directions/conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall earmark exclusively a separate area/place with appropriate enclosure in the restaurant premises and necessarily for the purpose of hookah smoking and no other area or portion of premises shall be used by the customers of the petitioner for smoking hookah.
(ii) Under the guise of inspection, the respondent-police authorities shall not harass the petitioners. However, it does not deter them from inspecting the premises at periodical intervals with prior notice to the petitioner, if necessary, to maintain the law and order.
Ordered accordingly.
kcm Sd/- JUDGE