Restaurants Are Not Entitled To Serve Hookah On Their Premises: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court recently stated that restaurants and eateries are not entitled to provide hookah, especially herbal hookah, and that doing so would be a nuisance because a restaurant is a place that children, ladies, and the elderly visit.

As a result, a division bench of Justice Girish Kulkarni and RN Laddha refused permission to a restaurant in Mumbai’s eastern suburbs that sought to serve herbal hookah.

The Court stated that even the eating house may not be able to monitor the ingredients of the hookah once the apparatus is in the custody of the customers.

“For example, in a restaurant or eating house where children, women, and the elderly visit for refreshments/eating, it cannot be expected that hookah is one of the menus being served, particularly in the category offered by the petitioner using flame or burnt charcoal. This would be an utter annoyance in so far as an eating house is concerned,” the bench stated.

Furthermore, it stated that the impact of such material on customers at the eating house could not be imagined.

“If it is permitted, every eating house in the city can provide ‘hookah,’ the nature of which the Municipal Commissioner cannot ascertain in the normal course of his duties. This would result in an uncontrollable situation beyond one’s imagination, the Court stated.

The bench was hearing a petition filed by one Sayli Parkhi, challenging a show cause notice issued to it by the M-West ward of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) asking her why the ‘eating house license’ issued to her should not be terminated after her restaurant ‘The Orange Mint’ was found serving herbal hookah to its customers three times.

The civic body argued that the same was in violation of the General License Conditions, which prohibited a restaurant from serving hookah. The civic body found it very unacceptable since it jeopardised public safety, endangered lives, and violated the General License Condition.

The Court stated that an activity that is not expressly permitted by the terms and conditions of the license cannot be assumed to be included in any license conditions. According to the bench, such an interpretation of the license conditions would result in an absurdity.

The bench held that the Municipal Commissioner could not be expected to keep a constant eye on the petitioner’s hookah trade/activities, including the petitioner’s claim of herbal ingredients and a further claim that such hookah does not affect “health” and/or create nuisance.

“Once it is clear that hookah activities are not permitted under the terms of the Eating House license, such activity cannot be permitted. It cannot be tolerated that the grant of a license to operate an eating house includes a license to conduct Hookah activities,” the bench highlighted.

The Municipal Commissioner is absolutely compelled to apply his thoughts to such matters that are dangerous to the citizens’ lives, health, or property while awarding licenses, the bench stated.

“In our opinion, in the present case, the Municipal Commissioner has appropriately exercised his discretion and authority to prevent the petitioner from engaging in the petitioner’s smoking or hookah activities,” the Court concluded.