' AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, J.--Since a common controversy has been agitated through above petitions the same are being disposed of through common judgment by consent of learned counsel for the parties at Katcha Peshi stage. The main grievance expressed through above petitions in C.Ps.
Nos.D-3517 to 3524 of 2014 by the petitioners, who being a private limited company incorporated in Pakistan holding broadcasting licence(s) for "Geo News" has sought following relief(s):-
(i) Direct the Respondent No.2 PEMRA, to implement its Restoration Order dated 20-6-2014;
(ii) Direct the Respondent No.2 PEMRA, to take action against the Respondent No.3 under Sections 30 and 33 of the PEMRA Ordinance, and to revoke/suspend the license of Respondent No.3 for violation of Section 28 of the PEMRA Ordinance.
(iii) Permanently restrain Respondents from obstructing/blocking smooth transmission of Petitioner's channel Geo News; so that the channel can be shown at the same position at which it was being shown on 19-4-2014 in compliance with PEMRA's Restoration Order dated 20.06.2014.
(iv) Grant any other consequential or better relief that this Honourable Court finds appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this Petition.
' Whereas, in C.Ps. Nos.D-3648 to 3658 of 2014 following relief(s) has been sought:-
(i) Declare that the PEMRA is empowered to take action against the Respondent No.3 under Section 30 of the PEMRA Ordinance and to revoke/suspend the license of Respondent No.3 for violation of Section 28 of the PEMRA Ordinance.
(ii) Direct PEMRA to take action against the Respondent No.3 under Section 30 of the PEMRA Ordinance and to revoke/ suspend the license of Respondent No.3 for violation of Section 28 of the PEMRA Ordinance.
(iii) Permanently restrain Respondents from obstructing/ blocking/shuffling smooth transmission of Petitioner's channels Geo Kahani and Geo Tez, within the province of Sindh.
(iv) Grant any other consequential or better relief that this Honourable Court finds appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this Petition.
' Whereas, in C.Ps. Nos.D-4018 to 4029 of 2014 following relief(s) has been sought:
(i) Declare that the PEMRA is empowered to take action against the Respondent No.3 under Section 30 of the PEMRA Ordinance and to revoke/suspend the license of Respondent No.3 for violation of Section 28 of the PEMRA Ordinance.
(ii) Direct PEMRA to take action against the Respondent No.3 under section 30 of the PEMRA Ordinance and to revoke/suspend the license of Respondent No.3 for violation of Section 28 of the PEMRA Ordinance.
(iii) Permanently restrain Respondents from obstructing/blocking/ shuffling smooth transmission of Petitioner's channels Geo Entertainment, within the province of Sindh.
(iv) Grant any other consequential or better relief that this Honourable Court finds appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this Petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner through above petitions has sought implementation of the order dated 20-6-2014 passed by respondent No.2 PEMRA whereby the license for broadcasting of Geo News has been restored, however, in spite of such restoration order, the Cable Operators, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, are not showing the channel of petitioner at the same position at which it was being shown on 19-4-2014 when the license of the petitioner channel was suspended. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 PEMRA has to implement its order of restoration of license of petitioner news channel by issuing directions to the Cable Operators, whereas, in case of non-compliance of such direction, action has to be taken against such Cable Operators in terms of Sections 30 and 33 of PEMRA Ordinance, 2002, whereas, in terms of Section 28 of the PEMRA Ordinance, the license of such Cable Operators can be revoked and suspended by respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since no action has been taken by respondent No.2 against delinquent Cable Operators, who are creating obstruction and blocking smooth transmission of petitioner channels, therefore, petitioner has filed aforesaid petition(s) before this Court seeking direction as referred to hereinabove. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 PEMRA can otherwise take action against Cable Operators for violating the order of Honourable Supreme Court as well as orders passed by this Court and the Lahore High Court on various petitions of the petitioner, whereby, respondents have been directed to ensure that petitioners channel may be allowed to remain operational without any hindrance, whereas, no action shall be taken in violation of PEMRA Ordinance, 2002 and PEMRA Rules, 2009. While concluding his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner(s) have a legitimate right to carry on its lawful business of broadcasting News Channels as per Article 19 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which ensures freedom of speech and expression of the freedom of press, whereas, its viewers cannot be deprived of their fundamental right for having access to the information being provided by the petitioner News Channel. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the reported case of Dr. Shahid Masood v. Federation of Pakistan 2010 SCM R 1849 including unreported decision of the learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court dated 21-11-2014 in W.P. No.19531/2014 in the case of the petitioner.
3. Pursuant to Court Notices, comments have been filed on behalf of respondent No.2 PEMRA, duly represented by Mr. Kashif Hanif, Advocate, as well as on behalf of various Cable Operators in the above petitions duly represented by M/s Dr. Amjad H. Bokhari, Abdul Bari and S. Amir Ali, Advocates, wherein, the allegations as contained in the above petitions have been seriously controverted, whereas, objection as to maintainability of the above petitions has also been raised. It has been argued on behalf of the respondents that the petitions being misconceived in fact and law have been filed without any cause of action, whereas, seriously disputed facts have been agitated through above petitions, which according to learned counsel for the respondents, cannot be resolved by this Hon'ble Court while exercising its Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that license of the netitioner i.e. Geo News has been restored by the PEMRA vide order dated 20-6-2014, whereas, the transmission of the petitioners channel has again been permitted and shown by almost 98% of the Cable Operators operating in the Sindh, particularly, at Karachi, hence the petitioner has no grievance or even cause of action to file above petitions and to seek such directions from this Court regarding implementation of the order passed by the respondent No.2 PEMRA in this regard. It has been further contended that as soon the petitioner filed complaint against some of the Cable Operators, who according to petitioner, are not showing their channel in spite of order of restoration of their license, the notices have already been issued by PEMRA, whereas, reply of such Cable Operators has been received in most of the cases, however, in view of pendency of above petitions before this Court no further action has been taken pursuant to such notices. As regards the request of the petitioner for telecast of their channel at the same position at which it was being shown on 19-4-2014 by the Cable Operators, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no provision in law either in the PEMRA Ordinance, 2002 or in the PEMRA Rules, 2009, which may authorize the PEMRA to issue such direction to the Cable Operators that particular channel may be shown at the particular position or number, therefore, according to learned counsel for the respondents, such relief otherwise cannot be granted to the petitioners. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that by filing above frivolous petitions the petitioner intend to take undue advantage of the restoration order passed by the respondent No.2 PEMRA, by pressurizing the respondent to accept the terms of the petitioner, which otherwise do not have any legal sanction nor can be enforced by filing constitution Petition(s) in absence of any specific legal provision or a contract of binding effect between the parties in this regard. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner has not been able to refer to any provision of PEMRA Ordinance, 2002 or PEMRA Rules, 2009, whereby, such relief could be granted to the petitioner nor has been able to refer to any decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or of this Court relating to subject controversy, which may support the contention of the petitioner. It has been prayed that the above petitions being misconceived in facts and law may be dismissed in limine along with listed applications with cost as the petitioner has filed above petitions without any cause of action or any legal justification. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance in the following case laws:-
(1) Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and 2 others v. Government of Pakistan and others PLD 2009 SC 507.
(2) The State and others v. Director General, PIA and others PLD 2010 Lahore 23
(3) Salahuddin and 2 others v. Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillery Ltd. Takht Bhai and 10 others PLD 1975 SC 244.
(4) Pakistan Red Crescent Society and another v. Syed Nazi Gillani PLD 2005 SC 806
(5) Abdul Wahab and others v. HBL and others 2013 SCMR 1383
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and learned Standing Counsel and perused the record with their assistance. From perusal of the contents of memo of petition(s) filed by the same petitioner(s) i.e. Independent Media Corporation (Pvt) Limited, it has been observed that through above petitions filed by the same petitioner, the petitioners is mainly seeking implementation of order dated 20-6-2014 passed by PEMRA Authorities for restoration of license of the petitioner channel i.e. Geo News, whereas, it has been further prayed that legal action may be taken against PEMRA Authorities as well as private Cable Operators, who according to petitioner, are either not showing the aforesaid TV Channels on their Cable Networks or creating hindrance and blockage of transmitting such TV Channel on their Networks. It has also urged that legal action in terms of Sections 28 and 30 of PEMRA Ordinance, 2002, may be taken against such delinquent officials. On perusal of the para wise reply and the comments filed on behalf of PEMRA Authorities and the private cable operators, it appears that such allegations have been seriously controverted by the respondents, whereas, it has been intimated that almost 98% of Cable Operators operating in the Province of Sindh, particularly, at Karachi, have restored the transmission of the petitioner(s), which according to learned counsel for the respondent, are being aired regularly, whereas, according to the respondent, there are hardly few Cable Operators being negligible in number, who according to respondent, are not showing such channels on their cable operating network.
From perusal of record, we have observed that the petitioner could not specify the nature of allegation against the Cable Operators, who according to petitioner, were not showing the aforesaid channels on their Cable Networks, however, learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed on the relief requiring the PEMRA Authorities to issue direction to the private Cable Operators to restore the position of the aforesaid channels on the same position when the said channels, according to the petitioner, were being shown prior to suspension of their license. When the learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted to refer to any provision of PEMRA Ordinance, 2002 or the Rules made there under, which may authorize the PEMRA Authority to issue such direction to the private Cable Operators requiring them to show any particular TV Channel on some specified number, learned counsel for the petitioner could not refer to any such provision of law, rule or regulation, however, contended that such directions were issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Shahid Masood v. Federation of Pakistan and others in C.Ps. Nos.46 and 47/2010, whereby, PEMRA was directed to ensure immediate distribution of broadcast service of ARY News and Geo News and to take legal action against delinquent Cable TV Operators, if any.
Learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to place on record copy of the final decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, however, record shows that copy of an interim order passed on 13-8-2010 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid one has been placed on record by the petitioner through rejoinder, wherein, directions have been issued to Chairman, PEMRA and 4 TV Cable Operators identified by PEMRA, who caused blockage and obstruction in distribution of the transmission of the said TV Channels to appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in person on the next date of hearing and to show cause why action should not be ordered to be taken against them in accordance with law. If we may take the aforesaid interim order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court placed on record by the petitioner as a final decision on the subject controversy, it may be observed that the private Cable Operators have not been directed to show the aforesaid two news channels on a particular number. On the contrary, the PEMRA and 4 Cable Operators identified by the Chairman, PEMRA have been directed to ensure that transmission of the broadcast service of PEMRA Licensed channels shall be continued without any hindrance and obstruction, whereas, action shall be taken against such delinquent Cable Operators in accordance with law. From perusal of the detailed comments filed on behalf of various Cable Operators, who have been impleaded as party in the aforesaid petitions, it has been observed that the allegations as contained in the aforesaid petitions regarding obstruction or hindrance in distribution of transmission of the aforesaid channels have been seriously denied and controverted, whereas, it has been stated that out of about 2500 Cable Operators functioning in the province of Sindh and the city of Karachi about 98% of such Cable Operators have already started to telecast the aforesaid TV Channels on their Cable Network system, whereas, some of the Cable Operators, could not air the aforesaid channels in view of the law and order situation, which according to such Cable Operators, was being created by the people of the area where such Cable Operators function, as the Petitioner telecasted highly derogatory News relating to the Chief of ISI and Armed Forces, which has develop fury in the number of viewers all over the country. It has come on record that PEMRA, on the complaint filed by the petitioner in respect of some specified Cable Operators, has already issued Show Cause Notices, which have been duly responded by such Cable Operators, however, in view of pendency of the aforesaid petitions, PEMRA could not take any final decision on such complaints in accordance with law, and such fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have observed that if the facts as stated in the memo of petition by the petitioner and the rebuttal submitted by the respondents are put in juxta-1A position, the same would refer to seriously disputed averments, which cannot be examined or resolved by this Court while exercising its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution without recording evidence. Moreover, after restoration of license of, the petitioner by PEMRA, admittedly, the transmission of the broadcast of the aforesaid TV Channels has already been resumed by 98% of the Cable Operators in the Province of Sindh, whereas, PEMRA has already issued Notices to such delinquent Cable Operators in accordance with law. It will not be out of place to refer to a recent decision of the Lahore High Court in the case of petitioner in W.P.
No.19531/2014, certified copy of which has been placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein, the petitioner has expressed the similar grievance and has sought identical relief. It will be advantageous to reproduce the relevant paras of the order dated 21-11-2014 passed by the Lahore High Court, which reads as follows:- "12. The real grievance of the petitioner as admitted by its learned counsel is that its channels are not being transmitted on the same numbers as they were being shown on 19-4-2014. Admittedly, PEMRA does not have the technical capability to monitor thousands of cable operators all over the country to see on which numbers they are transmitting programs of different television networks.
The Petitioner alleges that a number of cable operators have not restored its channel on the same numbers on which it was being shown on 19-4-2014 and the restoration order dated 20-6-2014 passed by PEMRA is being violated. Such allegation is vehemently denied by the other side. This is a factual controversy requiring recording of evidence which cannot ordinarily be undertaken by this Court while exercising its constitutional jurisdiction.
13. It has been categorically stated on behalf of PEMRA that it is ready and willing and indeed obliged to perform its statutory obligations as the regulatory authority. The only impediment that has prevented it from taking any action for alleged violations of the PEMRA Ordinance 2002 the rules and regulations framed there under and the restoration order dated 20-6-2014 is absence of specific information regarding alleged violation of its restoration Order. Such information consists of identification of cable operators who are violating the order in question, the number on which Geo News was being shown on 19-4-2014 and the number on which it is being shown now by such cable operator. In this view of the matter, the Petitioner may, if aggrieved of any action on the part of any cable operator, move an appropriate application with PEMRA under the provisions of the PEMRA Ordinance 2002 providing the aforesaid information. In case such application is moved disclosing specific information, PEMRA is directed to take up such application, investigate the matter and ensure that its Restoration Order as well as orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan as well as this court from time to time are implemented in their letter and spirit.
14. On the request of the learned counsel for the Petitioner it is further directed that in case such application(s) is/are moved, the same shall be decided after hearing all concerned parties in accordance with law through reasoned orders as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks of the date of receipt of such application(s)."
5. In view of herein above facts and circumstances of the instant petitions, we would dispose of above petitions with the directions to the petitioner to pursue the remedy which the petitioner has already availed by filing complaints, and may file fresh application(s) if so advised, before the respondent No.2 i.e. PEMRA by specifying the names of such B Cable Operators, who according to petitioner, are violating law and creating hindrance and obstruction in smooth transmission of aforesaid channels, whereas, respondent No .2 is directed to decide all such applications filed by the petitioner through reasoned order expeditiously, after hearing all the concerned parties strictly in accordance with law, preferably, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of this judgment in respect of applications already filed and pending disposal, whereas, in case if the petitioner may file fresh application(s) in this regard, the same shall be disposed of within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of such applications, after providing complete opportunity of being heard to all concerned, strictly in accordance with law.
' The aforesaid petitions are disposed of in the above terms along with listed application(s)