IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.50290/2019 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
Wiggly Wine Pvt., Ltd., Represented by Director, Suresh Subhashachandra Hooli, Aged about 47 years, No.4, 1st & 2nd Floor, Sai Arcade, Wilson Garden Society Layout, Kothnur Road, J.P. Nagar, 7th Phase, Bengaluru -560 054. ...Petitioner (By Sri. Byra Reddy, G.S., Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, Rep. By Secretary, Home Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bangaluru -560001.
2. Commissioner of Police, Infantry Road, Bengaluru -560 001.
3. Deputy Commissioner of Police, J.P. Nagar, Bengaluru South, Bengaluru -560 078.
4. Assistant Commissioner of Police, Subramanya Pura, Bengaluru -560 005.
5. Station House Officer/Inspector, J.P. Nagar, Bengaluru South, Bengaluru -560 078. … Respondents (By Sri. K. Dilip Kumar, HCGP) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India praying to direct respondents No.1 and 5 not to interfere in the lawful, activities carried on by the petitioner in the schedule premises of the petitioner and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Learned Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondents No.1 to 5.
2. The petitioner in the above writ petition sought for writ of mandamus directing the respondents No.1 to 5 not to interfere in the lawful activities carried on by the petitioner in the schedule premises and not to insist for obtaining license under the Karnataka Police Act or any other Act to serve Hookah.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is running a hotel and restaurant in the name and style “Wiggly Wine Pvt., Ltd.,” and has obtained license for trade on 23.05.2019. The trade license certificate was issued by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) as per Annexure –B, he is running restaurant and hotel business for many years. The BBMP issued license also to sell or provide any Tobacco or Tobacco related products in any form. The petitioner has provided a separate zone apart for smoking tobacco. In other forms, they are also providing the facilities of such smoking through Hookah. For the said business there is no need to obtain any license. But the respondents are interfering with the petitioner’s business. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Sri. G.S. Byra Reddy, Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been running the business of restaurant and hotel in the name and style of Wiggly Wines Pvt., Ltd., after obtaining license from BBMP for providing an apparatus for Hookah. There is no necessity of license to serve the apparatus of Hookah for smoking. Still respondents are interfering without any authority of law. He further contended that in similar circumstances, this Court in the case of Cloud Cafe Vs. The State of Karnataka and others dated 27.02.2017 in W.P. No.8140/2017 has disposed of similar matter directing, the respondent not to interfere with the legal activities of the petitioner, including serving of Hookah. Therefore he sought to allow the writ petition.
6. Per contra learned Government Pleader submitted that respondents are not interfering with the lawful business of restaurant and hotel being run by the petitioner and he further submitted that if the petitioner has provided a separate smoking zone, then there is no need to obtain license.
7. The said submission is placed on record.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the only ground urged in the writ petition, when the petitioner is running Hotel and restaurant, wherein the customers are permitted to smoke through Hookah and there is no need to obtain license, if the petitioner provided a separate zone in the restaurant and hotel for smoking through Hookah. This Court in similar circumstances made in W.P. No.14226/2015 through the order dated 03.09.2015 had 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.”
9. In view of the above, writ petition is disposed off with the same terms directing the respondents not to interfere with the legal activities of the petitioner.
10. Further reserved liberty to the respondents- competent authorities to proceed in accordance with law if the petitioner found any illegal activities in the bar and restaurant.
With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE BVK