Paras Art Studio challenges a government order rejecting its request for permission to organize a vape expo. Instead of allowing Paras Art Studio to proceed with the expo, the court dismissed the petition. Noting that the government’s response to the art studio failed to indicate the statutory framework utilized or reasons for denying the studio’s request, the court directed that the government provide a reasoned decision to the studio within six weeks.
Paras Art Studio v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 7894/2017, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi (2017).
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.
Electronic and/or battery-operated devices designed to deliver an inhaled dose of nicotine or other substances. Examples include electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), electronic cigars, electronic cigarillos, electronic hookah, vaporizers, and vape pens. ENDS does not include any device or medication approved by the government as nicotine replacement therapy.
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.
"A plain reading of the said letters indicates that there are no reasons that are provided. The statutory framework within which the said permission was sought and rejected is also not discernible from the petition. In this view, the impugned communications/ orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to respondent No.2 to consider afresh and pass a reasoned order after hearing the petitioners within the period of six weeks from today. The averments made in this petition would be considered as a representation on behalf of the petitioners."
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.
Paras Art Studio challenges a government order rejecting its request for permission to organize a vape expo. Instead of allowing Paras Art Studio to proceed with the expo, the court dismissed the petition. Noting that the government’s response to the art studio failed to indicate the statutory framework utilized or reasons for denying the studio’s request, the court directed that the government provide a reasoned decision to the studio within six weeks.