' AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, J.--- Through instant petition the petitioner Company initially expressed its grievance against some proposed adverse action by the PEMRA in view of oral threats which according to petitioner were being issued by the officers of PEMRA for cancellation of the license of the petitioner, which according to petitioner was issued on 9.8.2007 for a period of 15 years after fulfilment of all the codal formalities. However, during pendency of the instant along with license of two other Satellite TV Channels, hence, an objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents that the instant petition is not maintainable as cancellation of Satellite TV Channels in respect of the petitioner is a past and closed transaction, hence no relief can be extended to the petitioner through instant petition.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently controverted such position and submits that no order of cancellation of license of the petitioner's Channel was ever served or communicated to the petitioner nor the petitioner has ever been issued any show-cause notice or provided an opportunity of being heard in this regard. Whereas according to the learned Counsel, the respondents have unilaterally decided to cancel the license of the petitioner for alleged violation of provisions of Section 28 of PEMRA Ordinance, 2002, which extreme action is according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not otherwise not justified and can not be sustained in law. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that even from perusal of the documents, which have been placed on record by the respondents in the instant petition it has come on record that vide letter dated 8.5.2013 issued by Director General, Operations PEMRA, Islamabad to the petitioner, the petitioner was directed to submit Annual Renewal License Fee, which was duly responded by the petitioner, vide letter dated 10.6.2013 and an amount of Rs,10,65,000/- was also deposited towards Renewal of License, which fact alone, supports the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was never served with any show cause for cancellation of its Licence or the cancellation order produced for the first time in the instant petition by the learned counsel for the respondent. It is further contended by the learned counsel that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Rose and ZAM TV whose license was cancelled for any violation of provisions of Section 28, the respondents cannot directly resort to invoke the provisions of Section 30 and cancel the license of the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance in the case of M/S. Recorder TV v. PEMRA (2013 CLC 1376), wherein according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, under similar circumstances, while hearing an appeal against the same order passed by the PEMRA Authority cancelling the License of another TV Channel, this Court has categorically held that the PEMRA is not justified to invoke the provisions of Section 30(1)(c) of the PEMRA Ordinance, 2002 without resorting of provisions of Section 29 of PEMRA Ordinance, 2002 particularly, when the appellant was not provided any sufficient opportunity of being heard. Per learned Counsel, since the petitioner was never served with any Show-Cause Notice or the cancellation order, which has been brought on record for the first time by respondents during pendency of the instant petition therefore, the petitioner could not avail the remedy of filing an appeal against such order, as done by other two TV Channels. It has been prayed by the learned Counsel that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, the grievance of the petitioner may be redressed in the Instant petition as the impugned cancellation order has been passed in total disregard of the decisions of Hon 'ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court as referred to hereinabove whereas, no opportunity of being heard has been provided to the petitioner. Learned Counsel further submissthat alternatively, instant petition may be converted into an appeal and may be sent to the learned Single Judge of this Court to be decided on merits by treating the appeal within time
3. Learned Counsel for the respondent has opposed such contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and submits that since the order of cancellation as disputed facts have been agitated by the parties and the case of petitioner is a past and closed transaction.
4. We have heard learned. Counsel for the parties, perused the record with their assistance and examined the case law relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the subject controversy. Though, we are not inclined to dilate upon the merits of the case or the legality of the order passed by the PEMRA in respect of petitioner, whereby the TV Channel License of petitioner has been cancelled, however, since perusal of the record shows that the respondents have not been able to establish that the petitioner was ever issued or served with any show cause notice or the impugned cancellation order, whereas, no acknowledgment in this regard has been filed along with comments and counter affidavit of PEMRA, on the controversy, it has also come on record that letter dated 8.5.2013 was issued by Director General Operations PEMRA Islamabad to the petitioner, requiring the petitioner to get its license renewed by making payment of Rs,10,65,000/- which was duly responded by the petitioner and the said amount was also paid through Pay Orders, Such fact has not been denied by the respondents, which further suggests that neither the petitioner nor even the officers of PEMRA were aware of any such order of cancellation of license as alleged by the learned Counsel for the respondents. Under the circumstances, we are not inclined to simply dismiss instant petition on account of maintainability and to deprive the petitioner to seek redressal of its grievance by filing appropriate proceedings before the proper forum in accordance with law, whereas this Court is competent to modify the relief at any stage keeping in view the changed circumstances, in order to meet the ends of justice. Reliance in this regard can be placed in the case of M/s Sharaf Faridi V. Province of Sindh (PLD 1989 Karachi 404).
5. Accordingly, we are converting instant petition into Misc. Appeal in terms of Section 30-A of the PEMRA Ordinance 2002. Office is directly to allot number to this appeal which will be heard by any Single Judge of this Court as per roster and shall be treated as a Misc. Appeal against the cancellation order dated 29th July, 2011 and shall be heard and decided on merits, strictly in accordance with law, after examining the material available on record and the case law on the subject, preferably within a period of four months from the order of this Court.
6. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.