Scroll To Top
Home \Litigation \  Advanced Search

Country: Pakistan

Litigation SearchRefine/Modify Search

Find decisions that have...

(E.g., Keywords, citations, decision titles, or parties)
OrOr

But don't show pages that have...

Other Search Criteria:

from:to:

Search Results Results 1-10 of 12

Abbottabad Shisha Decision [Pakistan] [July 30, 2015]

A “shisha” café challenged a local government order ordering it to close. The court upheld the order because the government has imposed a ban on shisha (water pipe) smoking in all public places, including restaurants. The court noted the dangers posed by tobacco use, especially to nonsmokers in public places. 

Manager Smoke Sheesha Abbotabad v. Asst. Commissioner Abbottabad [Pakistan] [August 05, 2014]

A government inspector sent a final warning to a sheesha cafe to stop selling sheesha in public places, and to persons under the age of 18 years old. The manager of the sheesha cafe sought a Criminal Revision, but the court rejected the petition because it was without substance

Bilal Babar Khokhar v. Islamabad (WP No. 1517-2013) [Pakistan] [April 11, 2013]

Local enforcement officials visited a café in Islamabad that was offering shisha (water pipe smoking). The café asked the court to prevent further enforcement actions. The court dismissed the case, noting that the café’s owner had previously been convicted of violating the 2002 law on the Prohibition of Smoking and Protection of Non-Smokers Health. Since that conviction is still in effect and the café’s owner was not able to point to any illegal actions by enforcement officials, his claim was dismissed.

M/s. Olive Grill Restaurant v. Province of Punjab (WP No. 23510-2012) [Pakistan] [December 10, 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.

Usman Javed Siddiqui v. Model Town Society (WP No. 12537-2012) [Pakistan] [November 07, 2012]

A landlord attempted to stop a café from offering “shisha” (water pipe smoking) and, when the café did not stop, disconnected the café’s utilities. The owner of the cafe sued the landlord (a model town housing society) for interfering with his business by disconnecting his electricity and water. The court dismissed the claim based on its earlier ruling (in Society of Alternative Media and Research v. Punjab) that the 2002 Non-Smokers Health Ordinance should be enforced against the use of shisha in public places. The court ordered the housing association to restore the utility connections to the cafe once the cafe submitted an assurance to the court that it will no longer offer shisha.

Baig v. Province of Punjab (WP No. 15814-2012) [Pakistan] [June 25, 2012]

The Lahore City Government began to strictly enforce the smoke-free law against shisha (tobacco waterpipe) cafes, resulting in the closure of many shisha businesses.  In response, shisha cafe owners filed a petition in the Lahore High Court against the measures in Lahore. The Judge dismissed the petition.

Caffees Association v. Province of Punjab (WP No. 15813-2012) [Pakistan] [June 25, 2012]

As part of a crackdown on cafés and restaurants that offer “shisha” (water pipe smoking), local enforcement agents visited a number of cafés to enforce the law. In this case, the owners of various cafés alleged that the government violated their fundamental rights by prohibiting the sale of shisha, arresting and detaining some employees, and confiscating the product. The court dismissed the claim based on an earlier ruling in Baig v. Province of Punjab, in which the court ordered the café to prove that it was operating in compliance with the 2002 Non-Smokers Health Ordinance – by not serving shisha -- before resuming business.

The State of Pakistan v. Tarar [Pakistan] [March 20, 2012]

Philip Morris Pakistan placed several full-page color ads in major magazines around Pakistan, which violated a ban on advertising in the press.  A Civil Magistrate found the Head of Marketing for Philip Morris Pakistan guilty of violating the law. The Philip Morris executive claimed that the violation was in good faith because he did not believe the prohibition on advertising in the "press" included magazines.  The Magistrate rejected this argument, stating that the executive's position was "not tenable."  The executive received a small fine, but risks up to three months in jail if he commits a second offense.  

Society of Alternative Media and Research v. Government of Punjab (WP No. 25011-2011) [Pakistan] [November 07, 2011]

A non-governmental organization petitioned the Punjab government asking that the 2002 Non-Smokers Health Ordinance's ban on tobacco use in public be applied to “shisha” (water pipe smoking) in cafés. The court ordered enforcement authorities to strictly enforce the law. As a result of this decision, restaurants and cafes in Punjab Province cannot legally serve “shisha”.

Café's Association v. Province of Punjab (WP No. 14489-2011) [Pakistan] [June 24, 2011]

As part of a crackdown on cafés and restaurants that offer “shisha” (water pipe smoking), local enforcement agents visited a number of cafés and confiscated their shisha pipes.  An association of cafés claimed the local government violated their fundamental rights in attempting to enforce the law against the use of shisha in public. The court dismissed the café association's claim based on an earlier ruling of the court upholding the law prohibiting the use of shisha in cafes (Daniyal Arif v. Province of Punjab). The court ordered the local enforcement agency to follow the law and not to harass the cafés.

The materials and analysis available at this website are for informational and educational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice.