P 1 (PLP)

The Writ Petitions Nos. 5943, 5944, 5945, 5946, 5947, 6536, 8286, 8364, 10118, 10506, 10267 of 1980; 518, 709, 929, 930, 983 and 5661 of 1981, raising almost common issues for determination may be conveniently disposed of by this judgment. These petitions impugn the action of the Deputy Controller appointed for the purposes of Pakistan Hotels and Restaurants Act, 1976 (LXXXI of 1976), initiated and taken against the owners of various eating houses of Lahore for their failure to apply or furnish particulars demanded by him for registration as required by section 5 of the Act. and rule 7 of the Pakistan Hotels and Restaurants Rules, 1977, made thereunder. In some cases the Deputy Controller imposed upon the owners penalty under section 22 of the Act.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners maintains that the public eating houses in dispute cannot be taken to be `restaurants' within the bounds of the Act inasmuch as they do not provide lodging facilities to the `tourists' and do not conform to the `minimum prescribed criteria'. In order to appreciate the argument of the learned counsel it may be advantageous to have a look on the definitions of `restaurant' and `tourist' set out in clauses (1) and (n) of section 2 of the Act which for facility of reference are reproduced below,‑ "Section 1(l)=restaurant' means a public eating house providing standard and variety of cuisines on monetary consideration to tourists which conforms to the minimum prescribed criteria. Section 2(n)‑`tourist' means a person, whether a citizen of Pakistan or not, who stays overnight or more as a guest in a hotel at a place other than his normal place of residence." It is not necessary for an eating house to provide lodging to a person ; all that is required is that it should serve cuisine against payment of money to tourists. Whether a citizen of Pakistan or a foreigner, staying overnight or more as a guest in any hotel at a place other than his normal place of residence, is a `tourist' and the possibility of a visit by such a person to an eating house in dispute for taking food on payment could not be denied. However, the other reason for saving the eating houses in question from falling in the ambit of definition of `restaurant', namely, that none of them conforms to the `minimum prescribed criteria' is difficult for the learned counsel for the respondent to meet. The minimum criteria prescribed under rule 6(2) of the above referred to Rules as detailed in Schedule 11 thereof are set out below :‑ (1) The restaurant shall be suitably located in good and clean environ ment. (2) It shall have seating capacity for at least ten persons at a time at a minimum of three tables. (3) A wash basin with soap and clean towel and a toilet for customers in clean and working condition with modem sanitary fittings shall be provided at all times. (4) Kitchen shall be separate from the dining room, (5) Heating and cooling arrangements shall be available according to local conditions and the weather. (6) Serving staff shall wear clean uniform while on duty. (7) The manager shall be professionally trained and have a working knowledge of English language. (81 There shall be good quality crockery, cutlery, glassware, tableware and linen in the restaurant. (9) Kitchen shall be properly equipped, hygienically clean and well. maintained with clean cooking utensils. (10) The restaurant shall be anti‑fly and anti‑mosquito proofed. Admittedly none of the eating houses owned by the petitioners fully comes up to the above minimum standard laid down by the Rules. Therefore, these eating houses cannot be treated as `restaurants' and consequently their registration is not compulsory under the Act. Their owners cannot be penalized for not filing information with the Deputy Controller or for not applying for their registration. The Deputy Controller was not justified in calling upon the petitioners to supply him the requisite information nor could he take penal action against them if they had not chosen to oblige him. As a result the petitions are accepted and the impugned action of the Deputy Controller is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. s. A. H. Petition accepted.