The Petitioner sought to enforce the smoke-free provisions of the India's Tobacco Control Law ("COTPA") with respect to hookah parlors. After an investigation, the Court found that all hookah parlors were operating in accordance with COTPA and its implementation rules and disposed of the case. The Court also noted that the State will periodically inspect hookah parlor establishments to ensure compliance.
Suo Motu v. State of Gujarat & 5, Special Civil Application No. 4857 of 2009, High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad (2010).
Government, through its agencies and officials including prosecutors, may seek to enforce its health laws. For example, the government may revoke the license of a retailer that sells tobacco products to minors. These cases may also directly involve the tobacco industry, for example, a government might impound and destroy improperly labeled cigarette packs.
An individual or organization may sue their own government in order to advance or protect the public interest. For example, an NGO may sue the government claiming the government’s weak tobacco control laws violated their constitutional right to health.
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.
"An additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 3. From the earlier report and the present affidavit, we find that earlier number of Hukka Bars were inspected which were found to be running in accordance with the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2006 and the Rules framed thereunder. In the present affidavit, it is stated that pursuant to the order passed on 17th June, 2010, inspection
of 20 Hukka Bars has been done, out of which three Hukka Bars were found to be functioning and the remaining 17 were closed. No Hukka Bar is running in contravention of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and 6th respondent and the Association of Hukka Bars Owners, we are of the view that no further order is required to be passed in this case. However, the State authorities will continue with the periodical inspection of the Hukka Bars to ensure that the Act and the Rules framed thereunder or guidelines issued by the State vide notification dated 10th October, 2010 are not contravened by one or other Hukka Bar owners."
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 Petitioner sought to enforce the smoke-free provisions of the India's Tobacco Control Law ("COTPA") with respect to hookah parlors. After an investigation, the Court found that all hookah parlors were operating in accordance with COTPA and its implementation rules and disposed of the case. The Court also noted that the State will periodically inspect hookah parlor establishments to ensure compliance.