1/2017 M.A. Show Time Cable & Datacom Pvt Limited (Appellant) V/S PEMRA & Another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court
Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
Order Date: 28-APR-21
Two propositions/counts are as under: (i) That for the impugned decision an opinion was sought from the Regional Council of Complaints which had no jurisdiction under the ibid Ordinance to comment and/or recommend any opinion ,as far as dispute is concerned; (ii) That even if such recommendations are ignored to have been forwarded by the Council of Complaints and the impugned order be seen as an independent decision of PEMRA then again, the details of the outstanding dues does not seems to generate from PEMRA Ordinance 2002, Regulations 2011-12 and PEMRA Rules 2009, and hence are/were illegal and unlawful, and could be struck down by this Court on merit. -So far as the first question as raised by the appellant is concerned, is answered in affirmative that the Council of Complaints had no jurisdiction for rendering opinion/recommendation to PEMRA under the Ordinance and its role in this regard and the advice sought is of no avail and merits no consideration; it should have been an independent order of PEMRA in view of provisions of PEMRA Ordinance. - Schedule-B attached to these rules enables PEMRA to recover in-house channel fee for cable TV. Table VI provides licence fee of Rs.175,000/-upto10,000 subscribers as B-5 category which category appellant is enjoying followed by annual renewal of Rs.87,500/-. This amount is being paid by the appellant in terms of said rules as reflected in the outstanding dues chart hereinabove. It also enable the licensor PEMRA to recover Rs.24/-per subscriber per year which is a subscriber fee(Table VI), disclosed in horizontal column 2 in the subject chart incorporated in the impugned order. Table IX deals with in-house channel licence fee and is chargeable to all categories from B-1 to B-10. -Thus, in view of aforesaid rules and regulations, the claim is legitimate and I do not see any transgression of the PEMRA authority in claiming the amount mentioned in the impugned decision. -.It is pertinent to point out that rationale and vires of such levy and charge were argued by appellants counsel as the fee and other claims are claimed to be disproportionate. Perhaps these arguments could have served better had it been a case of challenging the vires of regulations and rules.Full judgment text for this case is not yet available on Pakistan Law Reports. Check the official Sindh High Court case law portal for the complete order.
This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.