Case Details

Citation(s)
2013 SLG 2294 2013 SLD 2294 2013 PLD 168
Sindh High Court
Constitution Petition No. D-2534 of 2010, decided on 25thOctober, 2012. DATE of hearing: 29th August, 2012
MUSHIR ALAM, C.J. AND SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, J
Asim Mansoor Khan for Petitioner. Kashif Hanif for
Respondent No. 2

ARY COMMUNICATION (PVT.) LTD. through Authorized OfficerVsFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Information and Broadcasting, Islamabad and another--Respondents

Law: Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XIII of 2002)

Section: 19,22,30A,33

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Law: Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Appeal and Review) Regulation, 2008

Section: 14

Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XIII of 2002)--- ----Ss. 19, 22, 30-A & 33---Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Appeal and Review) Regulation, 2008, Regln. 14---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Broadcasting licence, issuance of---Discrimination---Exercise of discretion by licence granting Authority---Principle---Petitioner applied to Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) for licence of landing rights of satellite television channel for transmiting religious and educational knowledge---Grievance of petitioner was that despite deposit of processing fee, the Authority had not issued required licence for the past many years---Validity---Authority in its absolute unfettered discretion, acted arbitrarily and discriminately by issuing licence to entertainment, sports, English and other television channels by ignoring channel of petitioner without any sufficient reasons and cause---Authority in pursuance of powers conferred upon it, had delayed licence to such an extent that petitioner was kept waiting for years without any fault on its part, thus Authority did not act fairly, transparently, judiciously and above any suspicion---Vested right of individual was protected by the Constitution and by fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens---Functionaries like Authority in question, which exercised statutory power were legally and constitutionally bound to discharge their functions strictly in accordance with law, otherwise an action contrary to law would not be sustainable and such Authority would expose itself for discriminatory treatment, which amounted to denial of valuable fundamental rights of people, for whose benefit such Authority had been created---Action of Authority was ultra vires, contrary to the Constitution and law, having no legal sanctity--- High Court directed the Authority to strictly follow principles of 'equity' and 'fairness' for taking decision on application submitted by petitioner for issuance of licence---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Abid Hussain Shirazi v. Secretary M/O Industries and others 2005 SCMR 1742; Dr. Tariq Nawaz and another v.…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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