| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 1385 2023 SLD 1385 2023 SCMR 1043 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2022, decided on 10th November, 2022. Date of hearing: 10th November, 2022. (On appeal against judgment Dated 13.08.2021 passed by High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Constitution Petition No. D-2680 of 2020)
Present: Ijaz Ul Ahsan, Munib Akhtar and Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, JJ
Ahmed Pervaiz, Advocate Supreme Court, Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record, Tahir Farooq Tarar, Head Legal, PEMRA and Mohsin Hamid Dogar, Director Regulation, PEMRA for Appellant. Faisal Siddiqi, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 1. Mian Aqeel Af
Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2022, decided on 10th November, 2022. Date of hearing: 10th November, 2022. (On appeal against judgment Dated 13.08.2021 passed by High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Constitution Petition No. D-2680 of 2020)
Present: Ijaz Ul Ahsan, Munib Akhtar and Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, JJ
Ahmed Pervaiz, Advocate Supreme Court, Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record, Tahir Farooq Tarar, Head Legal, PEMRA and Mohsin Hamid Dogar, Director Regulation, PEMRA for Appellant. Faisal Siddiqi, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 1. Mian Aqeel Af
PAKISTAN ELECTRONIC MEDIA REGULATORY AUTHORITY (PEMRA), ISLAMABAD-----Appellant
VERSUS
PAKISTAN BROADCASTERS ASSOCIATION and another-----Respondents
Law:
Section:
Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XIII of 2002) [as amended by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Amendment) Act (II of 2007)]--- ----Ss. 13, 30---Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (the Authority)---Power to vary conditions, suspend or revoke the licence--- Interpretation of section 13 of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, and principles relating to delegation of power exercised by the Authority under section 30 of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 to its Chairman stated. Considered analytically, section 13 of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 (the Ordinance) can be regarded as having three parts, with the proviso as an (important) tailpiece. Firstly, and most obviously, the section states that the power of delegation is discretionary. The exercise of the power can be in terms general or special. Secondly, it identifies to whom, and of what, the delegation can be made. Here, the section has, prima facie, been cast in broad terms. This part can be regarded as having two aspects. Any power, responsibility or function of the Authority can be delegated. And such delegation can be to anyone, whether he is the Chairman or a member or any member of its staff, or an expert, consultant, adviser, or other officer or employee. Thirdly, the section provides that the Authority may subject any delegation to conditions, which are to be provided for in the rules. The power to make rules, to carry out the purposes of this Ordinance, is conferred on the Authority by section 39. It is however subject to the approval of the Federal Government. Finally, the proviso identifies what cannot be delegated. The discretion conferred on the Authority by section 13 has to be understood and applied only in a properly structured manner. That structuring requires that the literal approach, which would regard the three parts of the section as essentially self-contained units, is to be eschewed. The section has to be read as a whole and the three parts can only be regarded as, and applied, as an interlocking whole. Each part acts on, and…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492