M/s. Olive Grill Restaurant v. Province of Punjab (WP No. 23510-2012)
As part of a crack down on cafes and restaurants that offer shisha (water pipe smoking), local enforcement officials raided and closed a restaurant in Punjab. The restaurant filed a petition arguing that the 2002 law on the Prohibition of Smoking and Protection of Non-Smokers Health does not apply to outdoor areas. The court analyzed the language of the law allowing smoking in an “open place” and determined that an open place is not a place where members of the public gather as a group to smoke. Instead, an “open place” is a place open to the sky where an individual chooses to smoke. Therefore, enforcement of the smoke-free law against the outdoor café was permissible.
M/s. Olive Grill Restaurant v. Province of Punjab, WP No. 23510-2012, Lahore High Court (2012).
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.
"According to Section 2(C) of the Ordinance, any place that is open to the sky but is cordoned in a manner to accommodate persons engaging in smoking within the enclosed restricted area cannot be described as an "open place". Therefore, an open place in the present context must necessarily be a place where an individual exercises his preference of smoking individually and not collectively. Consequently, to the extent that the District Government is taking prohibitory action against enclosed places open to the sky situated within the Sheesha cafes is concerned, such action is lawful within the meaning of Section 3 read with Section 2(c) of the Ordinance."
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.
As part of a crack down on cafes and restaurants that offer shisha (water pipe smoking), local enforcement officials raided and closed a restaurant in Punjab. The restaurant filed a petition arguing that the 2002 law on the Prohibition of Smoking and Protection of Non-Smokers Health does not apply to outdoor areas. The court analyzed the language of the law allowing smoking in an “open place” and determined that an open place is not a place where members of the public gather as a group to smoke. Instead, an “open place” is a place open to the sky where an individual chooses to smoke. Therefore, enforcement of the smoke-free law against the outdoor café was permissible.