Tobacco-free hookah service protected from coercive action, but enforcement remains possible if prohibited substances are used.

Hookah service stated to be tobacco-free was considered in relation to the amended tobacco-control law and possible coercive action. The Court noted the petitioner's apprehension of action despite the claim that no tobacco or nicotine was used, and recorded the State's position that enforcement would apply only to conduct prohibited by the amended law. It also noted the municipal communication that hookah parlours were not treated as eating houses for the licensing provision mentioned, while police action could follow if prohibited substances were actually used. On that basis, no blanket declaration was granted, but limited protection was recognised for lawful tobacco-free hookah service, subject to compliance with the applicable prohibition.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to a declaration or protective directions against coercive action for serving hookah stated to be tobacco-free, and whether any action could be taken only if a prohibited substance was actually found.

Analysis: The petition was founded on an apprehension that action might be taken despite the petitioner asserting that the hookah product used by him did not contain tobacco or nicotine. The material placed before the Court indicated that the product was claimed to be tobacco-free, and the State stated that it would act only in respect of conduct prohibited by the amended tobacco control law. The municipal communication also indicated that hookah parlours were not treated as eating houses for licensing under the municipal provision referred to, while police action could follow if prohibited substances were used. In these circumstances, the Court found that no wider declaration was necessary and that the petition was premature to the extent it sought blanket protection.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not granted an absolute bar against action, but was protected to the extent that no action would lie so long as he complied with the tobacco-control law and did not serve any prohibited substance.

Final Conclusion: The petition was disposed of with a limited protective clarification that lawful tobacco-free hookah service would not attract coercive action, while infringement of the applicable tobacco-control prohibition would remain actionable.

---