The Lahore High Court (LHC) has ruled that running a snooker club is a “lawful and legitimate” business, cautioning lower courts against using emergency laws to shut down recreational spots over vague complaints.
Justice Jawad Zafar, in a five-page judgment, set aside a trial court’s order that had forced a citizen in Sargodha to shut down his club. The ruling clarifies a fine line in Pakistani law: the difference between a genuine public nuisance and the fundamental right to earn a living.
The case landed in the high court after Muhammad Rashid, a local entrepreneur, saw his snooker club shuttered by an area magistrate. The closure followed a complaint from a neighbouring party who alleged the club was a source of “noise disturbance” and stayed open well into the night.
The magistrate had invoked Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), a law typically reserved for urgent public hazards like collapsing buildings or toxic waste, to order an immediate and total shutdown.
However, the LHC found that the magistrate had used a “sledgehammer to crack a nut.” Justice Zafar stated that snooker and billiards are legal recreational activities, not immoral acts or banned trades.
“Under the Constitution, every citizen has the fundamental right to conduct a lawful business,” the court noted. It further highlighted that powers under Section 133 CrPC are meant for temporary, emergency situations. Using them to impose a permanent ban on a business, the court said, was a “misuse of judicial authority.”
The judgment provides a balanced path forward for local authorities. While acknowledging that neighbours might have concerns about noise or operating hours, the court ruled that these are issues to be regulated, not reasons to destroy a person’s livelihood.
The court noted that instead of a total ban, the authorities could have simply set a closing time or mandated soundproofing.
Declaring the trial court’s previous order “null and void,” the LHC has allowed Rashid to reopen his club. The ruling serves as a precedent for other recreational businesses, making it clear that as long as they comply with local regulations, they cannot be shut down indefinitely on the basis of “unsubstantiated” complaints.