Crusade Against Tobacco v. Union of India and Ors.

A tobacco control organization sought to enforce the provisions of the Cigarette and other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA) (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and commerce Production Supply and Distribution) with respect to hookah parlors.  The Court concluded that Mumbai food establishment licenses do not require compliance with COTPA.  Accordingly, the Court ordered the Greater Mumbai Municipal Corporation to incorporate COTPA's terms while issuing such licenses.  The Court also noted that police authorities must inform the municipal corporation officers about any violations so that licenses not in compliance can be cancelled or suspended.

Crusade against Tobacco v. Union of India and ors., PIL 111, Bombay High Court (2011).

  • India
  • May 5, 2011
  • High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Parties

Plaintiff Crusade against Tobacco

Defendant Union of India

Legislation Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"It would therefore, be necessary for the Municipal corporation to incorporate such terms and conditions while issuing licences under section 479 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. Section 479 empowers the Commissioner/municipal Officer to impose stringent conditions subject to which licences may be granted. It goes without saying that the Municipal corporation shall have to incorporate the necessary terms and conditions in the licences, including existing licences, to provide that licencees shall comply with the aforesaid statutory provisions and that breach of any of the provisions of the above Act and rules shall entail cancellation/suspension of licence. This shall be done within six weeks from today."