Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 4917 = 2026 SLD 4917 = 2026 CLC 1281
Lahore High Court
F.A.O. No. 54373 of 2022, heard on 17th June, 2026.
Presented By: Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi, J
  Usman Nasir Awan for Appellant.        Ms. Babra Akram Jadoon, Assistant Attorney General along with Sh. Shehzad Ahmad, Director (Legal), PEMRA, Syed Shahab Qutub and Areeba Hassan for
Respondents.

Messrs SAMI CABLE NETWORK (PVT.) LTD. through Authorized Officer ---Appellant

VERSUS

PAKISTAN ELECTRONIC MEDIA REGULATORY AUTHORITY ("PEMRA") through Chairman and 2 others ---Respondents

Law: Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance (PEMRA), 2002

Section: 30-A

(a) Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XIII of 2002) S.30-A---Cable TV operating company---Regulatory charges, dispute as to---Subscriber fee, assessment of---Assessment on actual subscriber strength, requirement of---PEMRA's decision to reassess fee already assessed earlier, challenge to---PEMRA assessing subscriber fee on presumed subscriber count based on maximum permissible capacity---Legality---In essence, the appellant company challenged the demand of Rs. 69,26,820/- towards alleged outstanding subscriber fee and in-house CD channel charges, as well as refusal to renew its cable television licence until payment was made---It was the appellant's case that the demand was based on arbitrary assumptions rather than the actual subscriber base reflected in its audited accounts and subscriber data---Pivotal question requiring determination before the High Court was "whether the respondent authority could lawfully assess and recover subscriber fee on the basis of presumed subscriber strength instead of the operator's actual, verifiable subscriber data?"---Held: A significant aspect of the matter was PEMRA's own earlier exercise whereby, upon requiring audited accounts and subscriber data, it proceeded to determine subscriber strength and revise the fee position---Any departure from such earlier position had to be supported by express reasons based on record, which were conspicuously absent from the impugned order---Record indicated that revalidation of licence proceedings had been initiated after PEMRA's earlier determination---Legal effect of such revalidation process and its bearing on subsequent reassessment of liability was a central issue requiring determination---Impugned order neither examined this sequence nor explained how a concluded regulatory exercise could be revisited without addressing its legal consequences---Impugned order further proceeded on the assumption that subscriber liability could be assessed on the basis of maximum permissible capacity attached to the licence category, however, no legal provision was identified to justify such methodology, nor was it reconciled with the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register