Case Law Details
FFL Cuisines Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Police (Madras High Court)
Madras HC Allows Hookah Bar Only After FSSAI Confirms No Tobacco or Nicotine & Restrains Police From Interfering With Restaurant Subject to FSSAI Verification of Hookah Products
The petitioner filed a Criminal Original Petition seeking a direction restraining the respondents from harassing the petitioner and its staff in operating its resto bar, “Lord of the Drinks,” which included a separate smoking area for serving herbal flavour hookah claimed to be free from tobacco and nicotine.
The petitioner submitted that it was carrying on its restaurant and bar business after obtaining the necessary licences from the competent authorities. It stated that the separate smoking area served only herbal flavour hookah without any tobacco or nicotine content and that the business was being conducted in compliance with the requirements of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 (COTPA Act). The petitioner alleged that the respondent police were repeatedly disturbing the restaurant’s operations and directing the petitioner not to serve herbal hookah to its customers.
The respondents submitted that an identical issue had already been decided by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court in W.P.Crl.No.560 of 2025 by order dated 19.08.2025. In that case, the Court had directed the petitioner to approach the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to establish that the products used in the hookah did not contain tobacco.
The High Court examined the earlier decision, which recorded that the respondents were not interfering with the operation of the restaurant but required the petitioner to establish before the competent authorities, particularly the FSSAI, that the products used did not contain tobacco or nicotine. The earlier decision also noted that Section 4-A had been introduced into the COTPA Act through L.A. Bill No. 57 of 2022 prohibiting hookah bars and that the competent authority had to determine whether the products used in the hookah contained tobacco.
The earlier decision further observed that if the hookah product contained tobacco with nicotine, it would be governed by the COTPA Act. It also held that inhalation of smoke derived from products other than tobacco containing nicotine would fall within the definition of “food” under Section 2(za) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. Therefore, if the petitioner intended to operate an enclosed herbal hookah zone, it had to establish that its activity did not take place in a public place, including a restaurant, and did not fall within the prohibition under the COTPA Act. It further held that tobacco or nicotine-containing products could not be used and that any product claimed to be herbal had to satisfy the requirements of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
Following the ratio laid down in the earlier decision, the High Court directed the petitioner to approach the FSSAI authorities and furnish details of all ingredients used in the preparation of hookah at its premises. The Food Safety Officer was permitted to collect samples and send them for laboratory testing. If the authorities were satisfied that the products did not contain tobacco or nicotine, the petitioner would be at liberty to continue operating the hookah bar, and the respondent officials were directed not to interfere with the petitioner’s business.
The Court clarified, however, that the respondent police were at liberty to take action if any illegal activities were found to be carried on at the petitioner’s premises.
Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition was disposed of with the above directions.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to direct the respondents not to harass the Petitioner and its staff from running Petitioner’s Resto Bar (Restaurant and Bar) business carried on in the name and style of “Lord of the Drinks”, having separate smoking area for serving herbal flavour hookah without any content or trace of Tobacco/Nicotine.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is carrying on Resto Bar business in the name and style of “Lord of the Drinks”, after obtaining necessary licences from the competent authorities and the petitioner’s resto bar has a separate smoking area for serving herbal flavour hookah, without any content or trace of Tobacco/Nicotine, in compliance with the requirements contemplated under the Cigarettes and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003. While so, the respondent police are repeatedly causing an unrest in the petitioner restaurant and directed the petitioner not to serve herbal hookah to the customers. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioner has come up with the present petition.
3. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that a similar issue has already been considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.Crl.No.560 of 2025, wherein, vide order dated 19.08.2025, a direction was given to the petitioner therein to approach the FSSAI Authorities to prove that the products do not contain any tobacco.
4. This Court perused the order passed in W.P.Crl.No.560 of 2025, wherein, it has been held as under:-
“7. It is the consistent stand of the respondents that they are not disturbing the petitioner in running the restaurant. If the petitioner is of the view that his products do not contain any tobacco or nicotine, it is for the petitioner to satisfy the competent Authorities particularly Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).
8. In this regard, by way of amendment brought by the State Government under L.A.Bill No.57 of 2022, Section 4A was introduced, which prohibits hookah bars. Therefore, whether the petitioner’s hookah contains tobacco or not is an issue that has to be determined by the competent authority.
9. On considering the provisions of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 and Food Safety and Standards Act, if the product used in the hookah is tobacco containing nicotine, it will fall under the COTPA Act. Otherwise also the inhalation of a smoke derived from any product other than tobacco containing nicotine, it will fall within the definition of food under Section 2(za) of the Food Safety and Standards Act. Therefore, if at all the petitioner herein wants to run an enclosed zone for herbal hookah, first of all, he has to satisfy that his trade is not in a public place which includes restaurant and does not fall under the prohibition of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act.
10. He cannot use tobacco or any product containing nicotine, in view of the prohibition under Section 4(A) of the COTPA Act, and in case if we want to use any other product other than product containing nicotine and claims it to be a herbal product, it must be in satisfaction with the provisions of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
11. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to approach FSSAI Authorities and place before them all the ingredients used in the preparation of hookah in his premises. The Food Safety Officer may draw samples and send them to a laboratory for testing. If it is satisfied that the products do not contain any tobacco or nicotine, the petitioner is at liberty to continue his business in respect of running of the hookah bar.
12. Insofar as the running of the restaurant is concerned, the respondent shall not interfere with the petitioner’s business. However, it is made clear that the respondents Police are at liberty to take action if any illegal activities are found to be carried on in the petitioner’s premises.”
5. The aforesaid decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, applying the ratio laid down in the above case, this Court directs the petitioner to approach the FSSAI Authorities and place before them all the ingredients used in the preparation of hookah in its premises and the Food Safety Officer may draw samples and send them to a laboratory for testing. If it is satisfied that the products do not contain any tobacco or nicotine, the petitioner is at liberty to continue its business in respect of running of the hookah bar and the respondent officials shall not interfere with the petitioner’s business. However, it is made clear that the respondent Police are at liberty to take action, if any illegal activities are found to be carried on in the petitioner’s premises.
6. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.
Author Bio
