ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. --- Through this Constitutional petition the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 22.07.2013 passed by respondent No. 2 permitting the petitioner to run his restaurant named as Bahawalpuri Restaurant at Lorry Adda, Bahawalpur.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner is running a restaurant named as Bahawalpuri Restaurant situated at Army Market Lorry Addas, Bahawalpur, which is surrounded by a number of Bus, Vagon Stands and is providing food to the passengers as there is no canteen or restaurant in the premises of said Lorry Addas. When the petitioner was stopped during the holy month of Ramzan from running his business, he filed Writ Petition No. 4232 of 2013 in which the Court passed a direction to respondent No. 1 to decide the application of the petitioner and till then no adverse action was to be taken against the petitioner.
However, on 22.07.2013 the application of the petitioner was rejected. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 10.07.2013 the petitioner has already been allowed to run his business of restaurant on the report of field staff by respondent No. 3, whereafter it could not have been reviewed without fresh grounds; that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of exemptions provided under Section 4 of the Ehtram-e-Ramzan Ordinance, 1981; that the impugned order was passed on 22.07.2013 but he received a notice for hearing on his application on 24.07.2013. Hence prays for the relief.
4. Conversely, learned Assistant Advocate General submits that the restaurant is not in the premises of the government bus stand; that the impugned order was passed on the basis of the facts and circumstances to ensure the honour and respect for the Muslims observing fast in the holy month of Ramzan and, therefore, prays for dismissal.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
6. In response to the order dated 15.07.2013 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4232 of 2013 the application of the petitioner was rejected on 22.07.2013 without hearing the petitioner though a notice was issued to the petitioner on 23.07.2013 calling him to appear on 24.07.2013 in the proceedings undertaken in respect of the said order. The reason advanced by respondent No. 3 is that the said restaurant is not situated inside the limits of bus stand. The record further reveals that on 10.07.2013 on the basis of a report of the field staff the permission was already granted as on the preceding year such permission was already granted to the petitioner. I am surprised as to why the same field staff gave an inconsistent report to respondent No. 3.
7. A perusal of Ehtram-e-Ramzan Ordinance, 1981 reveals that it is aimed to provide measures to observe the sanctity of the month of Ramzan. Eating in the public places have been prohibited and the hotels, restaurants or canteen have been defined as public places.
However, under exemptions to Section 4 of the Ordinance ibid certain places have been permitted. It is appropriate to reproduce Section 4 for ready reference:- "4. Prohibition of serving eatables in certain public places .-- (1) No proprietor, manager, servant, or other person in charge of a hotel, restaurant or canteen, or other public place, shall knowingly and wilfully offer or serve or cause to be offered or served any eatables during fasting hours in the month of Ramzan to any person who, according to the tenets of Islam, is under an obligation to fast.
(2) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub -section (1) shall be punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
Exemption.- Nothing contained in Section 4 apply in respect of:---
(a) canteen or kitchen maintained in a hospital for serving food to patients;
(b) a restaurant or canteen within the premises of a railway station, airport or seaport or bus stand or in a train or aircraft;
(c) a kitchen or dining-car of a train; or
(d) a kitchen or canteen meant for children within the premises of a primary school."
8. On close scanning of the above-said section it is clear that under Exemption (b) a restaurant or canteen within the premises of a railway station, airport, or seaport of bus stand or in a train or aircraft is allowed to provide food during the month of Ramzan. A bus stand duly sanctioned by the authority is covered in this category. Obviously, a restaurant being run inside or outside of a bus stand is providing food to the travellers in normal days. Such travellers have already been exempted from observing the fast under the Islamic Law. In my humble view, the restaurants inside the sanctioned bus stands and those adjacent to and adjoining them and surrounded by other sanctioned bus stands are entitled to the benefit of clause (b) of exemptions of Section 4 of the Ehtram-e-Ramzan Ordinance, 1981.
9. For the foregoing reasons, I have found that the order dated 22.07.2013 has been passed without appreciating the correct proposition of law and in disregard to the factual position at site, therefore the same is set aside. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is permitted to run his restaurant business as a hotel surrounded by sanctioned bus stands during the month of Ramzan but he shall observe all the formalities as required by the District Administration.