- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9558 WP No. 4178 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 4178 OF 2023 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: 1. PALM RESERVE CAFE LLP, A LLP CONCERN, NO.179/583, FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR, S. BINGIPURA, HULLAHALLI GATE, BEGUR KOPPA ROAD, SAKALAVAR, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DIST, BENGALURU - 560 083. REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORIES P2 AND P3. 2. SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR B.K, SON OF SRI BHASKAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, NO.879, 3RD CROSS, VIVEKANANDANAGAR, BEGUR ROAD, NEAR UDUPI CORNER BAKERY, BEGUR, BENGALURU - 560 068, PARTNER. 3. SRI. HANSAL NICKSON, S/O SURESH NAIKAR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, NO.2, 1ST MAIN, 2ND CROSS CHINNAYANAPALYA, ADUGODI POST BENGALURU - 560 030, PARTNER. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.A. SUDHINDRA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9558 WP No. 4178 of 2023 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU CITY, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. THE SUPERINDENT OF POLICE BENGALURU RURAL DIVISION, NO.5, MILLERS ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 052. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE BANNERGHATTA POLICE STATION, BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 083. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NOT TO INTERFERE IN THE JUST AND LAWFUL ACTIVITIES OF THE PETITIONER WHICH ARE CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9558 WP No. 4178 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard Shri S.A. Sudhindra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri Shamanth Naik, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent - State not to interfere with the activities in the petitioners' cafe. 3. A perusal at the representation inter alia would indicate that the petitioners was running a hookah bar. The State Government has banned hookah by its order dated 07.02.2024, which this Court has affirmed by its order dated 22.04.2024, passed in W.P.No.4461/2024 and connected matters. It reads as follows: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9558 WP No. 4178 of 2023 "31. The defence all over is that Hookah is less harmful than Cigarettes. The studies again are otherwise, that Hookah exposes users to nicotine, an addictive chemical. The study is still on, whether Hookah may also contain higher levels of arsenic, lead, nickel and 15 times more carbon monoxide than cigarettes. Hookah, at public places, is typically used in groups, with the same mouth piece being passed around. The risk of contacting contracting diseases like hepatitis, herpes is more. It is again a myth that smoking of hookah carries less risk of tobacco related diseases than smoking cigarettes. Hookah contains many of the common toxins as cigarettes. If cigarettes can cause lung cancer or respiratory illness, hookah is catching up to it, as hookah sessions allow smokers for prolonged amount of usage, therefore, they are exposed to high concentrations of toxins. It is a fact that a session of hookah is more harmful than a pack of cigarettes. Hookah sessions are said to be typically around an hour in length, which is an estimated 200 puffs per session. If it is 200 puffs per session, it is equivalent to 100 cigarettes, in any of these sessions. Hookah, is, as addictive as a cigarette; as harmful as a cigarette; has the same chemicals as a cigarette. Every packet of cigarette must contain a warning that it is injurious to health; every bottle of alcohol would contain a warning that it is injurious to health, but Hookah does not. Therefore, the action of the State is in strict consonance with Article 47 of the Constitution of India, apart from it being completely tenable in law. 32. Finding no merit in the petitions, the petitions stand rejected." 4. In that light, if representation contains anything about peaceful running of hookah, such a representation would not be directed to be considered even. If there is disturbance with the other activities of the petitioners, it is open to the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9558 WP No. 4178 of 2023 petitioners to knock at the doors of this Court, in an appropriate petition. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- ______________________ JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 CT: BHK