' MAMOON KAZI, J.---The brief facts to be noted are that the petitioner owns a restaurant, which he is running in the name and style of Alpha Restaurant in Saddar, Karachi. The petitioner received a notice dated 11-8-1985 from the Deputy Collector, Department of Tourist, respondent No,3 calling upon him to show-cause within seven days from the date of the receipt of the notice as to why penal action should not be taken against the petitioner under section 22 (1) of the Pakistan Hotels & Restaurants Act, 1976. It may be pointed out that the petitioner had earlier been advised by the said respondent to submit an application for registration of his hotel but admittedly no compliance had been made by the petitioner with the said notice. Being aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Controller, respondent No,2 who was the appellate authority under the provisions of section 25 of the said Act but his appeal was 'dismissed vide order passed by the said respondent dated 11-12-1985. The petitioner then filed a revision before the Joint Secretary, Tourism Division, Islamabad under section 25 (2), but before the same could be disposed of, the petitioner received a final show-cause notice from the respondent No,3 once again threatening action under section 22 (1) of the said Act and thereafter a penalty of Ps.5,000 has been imposed on the petitioner and hence the present petition.
2. The definition of restaurant contained in section 2(1) is as follows:- "(I) "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 5 of the said Act lays down that: "5. (1) The owner of every hotel and restaurant shall within a period of two months from the commencement of this Act; or from the opening of the hotel or restaurant, or from the date on which this Act becomes applicable to such hotel or restaurant, whichever is later, apply to the Controller for registration of his hotel or restaurant and for determination of fair rates in relation thereto and, in the case of hotel, also for its classification, on payment of such fee as may be prescribed.
(2) No hotel or restaurant shall be registered unless--
(a) it conforms to the prescribed standard of health, hygiene and comfort, provided that the Controller may allow provisional registration subject to such conditions as he may deem fit and, for good and sufficient reasons, modify, alter or withdraw any such condition at any time;
(b) it furnishes at its expense certificates of medical fitness from a Medical Officer of the civil hospital of the area in respect of its staff in such form as may be prescribed;
(c) its building is structurally safe and adequately protected against fire or an accident arising out of electricity or gas and safety of the tourists is ensured.
(3) The Controller, or an officer authorised by him in this behalf, or a member of the committee may, at any time, inspect the premises of a, hotel. Or restaurant, call for information, plan or data in respect of any matter concerning such hotel or restaurant or, at the cost of the owner, carry out, or require the owner to carry out, test of any articles or appliances or foodstuff."
It would thus be seen that owner of every restaurant is not required to get itself registered under the aforesaid provisions, unless it conforms to the requirements of the definition contained in section 2(1), just reproduced above. For the purpose of determination whether a restaurant falls within the purview of the above definition, the concerned authority has therefore, first to hold an enquiry in this regard. Admittedly, such enquiry was not held by respondent No,3 to determine whether the restaurant owned by the petitioner falls within the purview of the said defmition. In such a case the entire action taken against the petitioner would be without lawful authority.
3. In the result, we allow this petition. We remand the case to respondent No,3 for holding an enquiry to ascertain whether the restaurant owned by the petitioner conforms to the requirements of the definition. In that the said respondent shall afford a proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before taking further action in the matter. The parties are left to bear their own costs.