' SHAUKAT AZIZ SIDDIQUI, J.--- Through short order dated 22.04.2014 Writ Petitions Nos.904/2014 and 1204/2014 were dismissed which is reproduced herein below:-- "For the reasons to be recorded later on W. Ps. Nos. 904 and 1204 are dismissed. I am fully convinced that the requirements of Statutory law have been fully met with while granting LDI licence to M/s CM Pak LDI Limited, therefore, interim order dated 28.02.2014, is hereby vacated."
' The reasons for the above reproduced short order are as follows:- ' In Writ Petition No.904 of 2014, Petitioner invoked the Constitutional Jurisdiction of this Court with the following prayer:- "In view of the above, it is most humbly prayed that the instant Petition may kindly be allowed and declarations and/or directions to the following extent petition may kindly be issued whereby:- ' That the acts of admission and process of the Application dated 06.10.2013 for grant of LDI License without Invitation and Public Notice; its acceptance without Determination, Public Hearing and due process; and the grant of license dated 18.12.2013 to the Respondent No.4 in violation of the Directives dated 17.07.2012 on the rates given in erstwhile Policy of 2003 be declared against the Constitution and Law; as such void ab initio; ' That the Respondent No.2 be directed not to grant the new LDI licenses except by way of open, fair, and transparent bidding process; and ' That an ad-interim injunction/ stay may kindly be granted whereby the operation of the impugned license dated 18.12.2013 may kindly be suspended and the Respondent No.4 be restrained to be claim itself as a Licensee and the Respondent No.2, in specific, be restrained from issuing the 'Commencement Certificate for any sort of LDI service' in favour of the Respondent No.4 till the final decision in the writ petition."
' AND presented the facts as under:-
2. That owing to certain factors, the Cabinet Committee on Regulatory Bodies (CCRB) on 22.03.2006 suspended the grant of new LDI Licenses for a period of 07 years i.e. Till 22.03.2013 (Withholding Period), therefore, the numbers of LDI Licenses were capped to 14 in addition to the incumbent operator - PTCL and other intended parties could not avail the facility. That withholding period ceased on 22.03.2013 and it was legitimately expected that the Regulator/ Respondent No.2 shall grant the new licenses or that of one issued to M/s. Callmate Tellips Telecom Limited (Callmate) by following the Policy, Directives & Regulations. That on application of Respondent No.4 moved on 06.10.2013 license was granted to it without public notice to the interested stake holders including petitioners which speaks malafide, arbitrariness, unfairness, non-transparency and discrimination which is unwarranted under the Constitution and law particularly when the same request made by another provider of telecommunication service M/s Cyber Internet Services (Pvt.) Ltd. Was turned down by PTA stating that since there is no policy directive from Government of Pakistan on lifting the watchhold on LL/LDI licensing. Therefore, in the absence of policy directive PTA cannot process your application for issuance of license and advised to apply once policy directive is in place.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA)
Respondent No.2 had issued the license of Long Distance International to the Respondent No.4 without "Open Auction" in violation of the directive dated 17.07.2012, therefore, the grant of License to the Respondent No.4 for telecommunication services of "Long Distance and International (LDI, category dated 18.12.2013) at the fee of 500,000/- US Dollar which was fixed in 2003 Policy, expired in 2008 and without Public Notice, Public Hearing, Open auction is in violation of the Constitution, law, rules and policy directive governing the subject matter, is based on malafide, bad governance, inequality, unfairness, lack of transparency, discrimination and capricious and colorful exercise of authority. That Petitioner being a competitor and intended licensee is aggrieved of the illegal actions on the part of Respondents which resulted into an estimated loss of approximately 25 to 30 Million US Dollars to the national Exchequer due to non-auction of the aforesaid impugned license.
' It is further argued that PTA Act authorizes the Regulator to grant the License on payment of the Fees as may be prescribed which is subject to other provisions of the Act whereby the Policy Decisions and the Directives are binding upon the Authority who shall formulate the Regulations to exercise the powers. It is apprised that (i) Policy was framed in 2003 that expired in 2008 (ii) the Directives issued in 2012 for award of License by open auction are Intact but not followed; and (iii) the process provided by PTA (Functions and Powers) Regulations, 2006 has neither been adopted nor followed.
' That the Policy Directives issued on 17.07.2012 are binding on the Regulator in terms of Section 8(2)
(a) and (aa) read with Section 21(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, issuance of license is the prerogative of the Authority however such right can be used pursuant to the Policies and Directives of Federal Government. That it is the legitimate expectancy of all intended service providers that open, fair, transparent, equitable, non discriminatory and consistent manner would be adopted to maintain transparency, competitive process and to achieve the purpose of legislation through open auction by the PTA under the guidelines of Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Act. That the Regulator has violated the Constitutional requirements and provisions of the Act, Directives and Regulations and reinstated an erstwhile policy without competency to do so, therefore, Petitioners have no other adequate and efficacious randy except to invoke the Constitutional Jurisdiction of this Court, hence this Writ Petition.
4. On the other hand Respondents filed their report and Parawise comments. Respondent No.1, Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M/o Information and Technology contended that under clause 17(A) (1) of the Rules of Business, 1973, Schedule-11, Distribution of Business among the Division is mandated to prepare overall integrated plan as well as formulation of policy of development and improvement of Information Technology and Telecommunication including related infrastructure, in Pakistan. By virtue of Section 2(f)(a) of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996 (the Act), Respondent No.1 being the Federal Government, under Section 8 of the Act issues policy directives to the Respondent No.2/13TA which are binding on it and to be complied with and implemented. In order to liberalize the Telecom Sector, the Federal Government has issued various policies and directives since, 2003 on various matters/issues. That PTA under section 4(1)(M) of the Act is mandated to regulate completion in the telecom sector and protect consumer rights. Section 6(t) of the Act provides that the interests of users of telecommunication services are duly safeguarded and protected. That PTA under Section 5, read with Section 21 grants and renews licenses for establishment, maintenance of telecommunication system and provision of telecommunication services in Pakistan. That as regards issuance of new LDI license in lieu of defunct license of M/s Callmate Tellips Telecom Ltd. Whose licenses was cancelled due to default is concerned, the Cabinet constituted a Committee to settle the issue relating the issuance of LDI license and 3G Spectrum. In a meeting of the Committee constituted by the Cabinet, the option of issuing one LDI license through open auction was preferred. Therefore, MA) Information Technology, considering the recommendations of the Cabinet Committee, issued a Policy Directive dated 17.07.2012, under Section 8(2) of the Act. The policy directive was issued for compliance by the PTA while dealing with cancellation of license of M/s Callmate' Tellips Telecom Ltd. Which has nothing to do with the case of Respondent No.4. That no illegality was committed as it is the sole discretion and domain of the Respondent No.2 to issue licenses regarding telecommunication services of LDI category licenses.
5. Respondents Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) and D,G. (Licensing) Pakistan Telecommunication Authority, PTA, in addition to above assertions filed by respondent No.1 contended that petitioner are neither interested nor affected parties, therefore, writ petition is not maintainable. On merits contended that infact the De-Regulation Policy, 2003 has not expired although it was stated that the same will be subject to review after five years but non-review of the same does not mean that it has ceased to exist, the same still holds field and is intact. It is contended that application for grant of LDI License by Cyber Internet Services Providers was made before issuance of MoIT's letter dated 12.11.2013 intimating the end of watch hold period and clarifying the position that grant of license is the domain of PTA as per applicable law, rules and policy.
6. Learned Counsel for Respondent M/s CM Pak LDI Ltd. Contended that there exists no requirement in the applicable legal framework for auction of 'Licenses' or LDI Licenses nor have any LDI Licenses been ever auctioned in the past. That exclusive power to grant a License under the Act of 1996 is that of Respondent No.2, therefore, the directive of the Respondent No.1 dated 17th July 2012 could only be deemed as a suggestion or guideline on the part of Respondent No.1 which it suppressed the same vide its communication dated 12th Nov. 2013 that Petitioner has made a patently false statement in claiming that it is a 'competitor and intended licensee' since the Petitioner M/s Wise Communications already holds LDI License consequently, it cannot be an 'intended licensee' moreover, its license was canceled due to involvement in illegal grey trafficking causing losses of billions to the National Exchequer. That expectations of the Petitioner stated are' not only based on misconstrued premises but are also factually baseless as the Petitioner already holds an LDI License and consequently cannot be a potential interested party in a new LDI License. That Petitioner does not understand the difference between a 'license' and 'radio frequency spectrum.' the auction, in 2004 which earned US$291 million was for each block of radio frequency spectrum and not for a license to provide cellular mobile services. The license was granted by the Respondent PTA in pursuance of its exclusive power under Section 21 of the Act of 1996 and the radio frequency spectrum successfully acquired in the auction an entity was thereafter assigned to such license. The same applies to the upcoming auction of radio frequency spectrums .Capable of being used for installing 3G/4G technologies. That a license is a right granted on terms and not a commodity having not value as that of a commodity rather a fee which is to be determined by the Respondent No.2 and so has been in terms of an LDI License being US$500,000 per license. That there existed no requirement for a public notice in response to the application of CMPak Ltd. Or the Respondent No.4 for grant of LDI License. Further, Petitioner being a holder of an LDI License could not be a contender for a further LDI License. That Petitioner cannot rely upon the past baseless, arbitrary and capricious acts of the Respondents Nos.1 and 2 to substantiate a claim that a lawful and proper exercise of its statutory powers by the Respondent No.2. Learned Counsel for Respondents prayed for dismissal of Writ Petition on the basis of facts and law mentioned above.
' I have heard the learned Counsel and perused the documents annexed with the Petition.
7. I have given very serious consideration to the submissions of learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Counsel 'for Respondents, but despite this fact I could not find any material to support the contention of the Petitioner that some favour has been extended to the Respondent No.4, in any manner whatsoever. Apparently instant petition is an endeavour to deprive the Respondent from participation in the auction proceedings to which petitioner is not intending bidder. I am convinced that all the codal formalities have been met with while granting license to the Respondent No.4 and nothing dubious or irrelevant surfaced.
' In this view of the mailer, both Writ Petitions No.904, 1204 of 2014 being devoid of any merit are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.