Law: Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002

Section: 14

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 73,19

(a) Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XIII of 2002)-- ---.----S. 14---.---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 73 19---.---Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Radio Broadcast Station Operations) Regulations, 2012. Reglns. 7 9---.---Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Rules, 2009, R. 9---.---Money Bill---.---Nature of procedure---.---"PEMRA Fund"---.---Grant of licence by Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, (PEMRA)---.---Licence to operate radio broadcasting---.---Licence fee---.---Renewal of such licence fee---.---Nature of licence fee deposited into the PEMRA Fund in terms of S.14 of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002---.---Scope---.---Petitioners, impugned vires of S. 14 of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, in reference to imposition of "licence fee" and renewal for the same, for radio broadcasting licences---.---Contention of petitioners inter alia was that "renewal fee" was a "tax" and not a fee, as there was no quid pro quo for the said fee, and that the same was not passed as a Money Bill within meaning of Art.73(3)(a) of the Constitution---.---Validity ---.----Per Art.73(3)(a) of the Constitution, it was clear that a "licence fee" or "fee" was not a "tax" and that a licence fee was distinct from a fee or a charge for services rendered and it was not necessary that every licence have a quid pro quo or that licence fee or renewal fee be passed through a Money Bill---.---Article 73(3)(a) of the Constitution distinguished between "licence fee" and a "fee for services rendered" which meant that a licence fee did not require any quid pro quo but there must exist a correlation between fee charged and cost of administration under the relevant law---.---Licence fee must commensurate with the cost of regulating although exact arithmetical equivalence was not expected and such licence conferred a right on the licence-holder to do something which it otherwise could not do---.---PEMRA, in the present case, was required to regulate the licence-holder to ensure compliance of the law and terms of the licence---.---High Court observed that per the terms…