Concepts & More (Concepts), et al., hookah bar owners, sued the Health Officer of Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to stop BBMP from interfering with their right to sell hookah. Concepts claimed that BBMP cannot regulate Concepts' hookah business as hookah is regulated pursuant to India's national omnibus tobacco control law, COTPA. BBMP contended that it possesses jurisdiction to cancel Concepts & More's trade license. The Court observed that the power to cancel a business license is a quasi-judicial power which has to be exercised by the Commissioner. The Court further held that judicial power cannot ordinarily be delegated without the law's express or clear implication. The Court declared that the power to cancel the licenses cannot be inferred and that BBMP did not have the authority to cancel licenses. The Court allowed Concepts' writ petition and quashed BBMP's orders that cancelled the business licenses.
Concepts & More v. Palike, et al., WP No. 16820, High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore (2012).
Tobacco companies or front groups may challenge any legislative or regulatory measure that affects their business interests. Unlike public interest litigation, these cases seek to weaken health measures. These cases frequently involve the industry proceeding against the government. For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional.
A violation of the right to carry on trade, business, or profession of a person’s choice. This right may also be called the right to free enterprise or economic freedom. The industry may argue that a business should be able to conduct its business without government regulation, including whether or not to be smoke free.
A single or multi-stemmed instrument for vaporizing and smoking flavored tobacco (shisha or sheesha) or other products in which the vapor or smoke is passed through a water basin ‒ often glass-based ‒ before inhalation. Water pipes are known by a variety of names such as hookah, huqqah, nargilah, nargile, arghila, and qalyan.
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"The said power cannot be inferred under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act unless it is specifically conferred by a statute or delegated in accordance with law. I have already held that the law does not permit the delegation of the quasi judicial power vested on the Commissioner to cancel the license to the Health Officer. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents, the Health Officer has the power to cancel the license is without any merit."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
Concepts & More (Concepts), et al., hookah bar owners, sued the Health Officer of Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to stop BBMP from interfering with their right to sell hookah. Concepts claimed that BBMP cannot regulate Concepts' hookah business as hookah is regulated pursuant to India's national omnibus tobacco control law, COTPA. BBMP contended that it possesses jurisdiction to cancel Concepts & More's trade license. The Court observed that the power to cancel a business license is a quasi-judicial power which has to be exercised by the Commissioner. The Court further held that judicial power cannot ordinarily be delegated without the law's express or clear implication. The Court declared that the power to cancel the licenses cannot be inferred and that BBMP did not have the authority to cancel licenses. The Court allowed Concepts' writ petition and quashed BBMP's orders that cancelled the business licenses.