' SHAMS MEHMOOD MIRZA, J.---Through this writ petition a direction is sought from this Court to respondents Nos.2 and 3 for accepting Rs.8.05 Million from the petitioner and for issuance of the certificate for the renewal of the petitioners B-10 cable license for the year 2014-15. It is further prayed that seizure order dated 02.12.2014 issued by respondent No.2 be declared to be without lawful authority.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for and was granted B-1 category license on 26.06.2007 which was valid for a period of five years w.e.f. 15.06.2007. The petitioner after fulfilling all the procedural requirements of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) also got its license upgraded from category B-1 to B-06. The petitioner company applied for further up gradation of its license from category B-6 to B-10 vide letter dated 21.09.2011 and also deposited the amount of Rs.1.4 Million on 07.10.2011. Respondent No.2 issued a seizure order dated 02.12.2014 which has been impugned in this writ petition. The petitioner on 09.12.2014 approached respondent No.2 with a request to accept the payment of Rs.8.005 Million but the same was refused.
3. In pursuance of the notices issued by this Court, respondents Nos .2 and 3 entered appearance and filed their para wise comments controverting the stance of the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner has been continuing its cable operations illegally without a valid license as its license issued on 15.06.2007 I had expired on 15.06.2012. It is further stated that petitioner is a defaulter of PEMRA and owes a substantial sum of Rs.17.3 Million in arrears.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the license got renewed for five years every time it was upgraded. It was stated that earlier PEMRA through notice dated 21.03.2013 had demanded from the petitioner a sum of Rs .4,005,000/-plus 5%, gross annual advertisement revenue which was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.15352 of 2013 wherein through order dated 19.06.2013 the operation of notice dated 21.03.2013 was suspended. It is further submitted that by virtue of Section 29(5) of PEMRA Ordinance, 2002, only PEMRA or its chairman can order for seizure pursuant to a show cause notice issued to the distribution service. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to Section 33(B) of PEMRA Ordinance, 2002 which stipulates that a search warrant can only be issued by a Court on information provided by the authority if it has reason to believe that any unlicensed distribution service is being owned, controlled or operated.
5. The examination of the document on the record shows that the petitioner's license expired in June, 2012. The petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No.15352 of 2013 and in paragraph 13 of said petition, the petitioner itself admitted that its license was for a term of five years which expired in June 2012. It was further stated in the said petition that the petitioner could not get the license renewed on account of the financial crunch and that it has made several requests to PEMRA for waiver of the fee. Notwithstanding the admission of the petitioner regarding the expiry of its license in June 2012, it is further clear that the up gradation of a license does not ipso facto extend the period of a license. Regulation 12 of PEMRA Ordinance, 2009 is quite clear and reads as follow:-- "12. Renewal of licence on expiry of the licence term.---(1) A A licensee may, at least six months prior to the expiry of the licence, apply to the Authority for renewal of its licence and the a. Satisfactory past performance of the licensee; Authority may renew the licence subject to b. the opinion of the concerned Council if the Authority so requires: c. Payment of the prescribed fee prevalent at the time of renewal and payment of outstanding dues, if any; and d. Fulfilment of any other terms and conditions as prescribed, or varied in the public interest, by the Authority from time to time.
(2) In case of refusal of renew a licence, the Authority shall record reasons in writing.
(3) The Authority may renew a licence for such terms as the original terms of the licence beginning from the date of expiry of the licence.
Reading of the above rule shows that the petitioner had to approach the authority for renewal of its license prior to June, 2012. During the course of hearing of this case on 12.01.2015, the matter was adjourned at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner enabling him to file additional documents to demonstrate that the petitioner had indeed made requests to the PEMRA for renewal of its license prior to its expiry in June 2012. Today the learned counsel for the petitioner in the Court filed an application along with plethora of documents. The documents appended with the aforementioned application, however, do not show that any request letter was addressed by the petitioner to PEMRA for renewal of its license prior to its expiry. In fact the petitioner has itself appended with the said application numerous notices issued by PEMRA to the petitioner asking it to revalidate its license after clearing the over dues. The report and parawise comments filed by the respondents show that the petitioner is a defaulter of PEMRA to the tune of Rs.17.3 Million but the petitioner's counsel submits the actual amount Payable is Rs.8.005 Million. It was not elaborated as to how the amount of Rs.8.005 Million has been worked out but reference to letter dated 21.03.2013 was made whereby a demand of Rs.4,005,000/- was raised against the petitioner. The perusal of the said letter shows that PEMRA had demanded Rs.4,005,000/- + 5% gross annual advertisement revenue, which amount was overdue in March, 2012. The petitioner continued running the cable network since June, 2012 without obtaining renewal of its license. The contention of the counsel for PEMRA that since March 2012 the amount due from the petitioner has swelled to Rs.17.3 Million appears to be justified.
6. It is clear that by virtue of Sections 33(3) and 34(A) of PEMRA Ordinance, 2002 the violation of any provision of Ordinance is a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 4 years or with fine or both in addition to the confiscation of the equipment. In terms of Regulation 20 of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Distribution Service Operation)
Regulations 2011, any authorized officer or its nominee can physically inspect a distribution service station at any time and in doing so he can seek the aid of amongst others police and if any violation of the Ordinance, rules, regulations or terms and conditions of license is found, he can seize the equipment. This power of search and seizure is circumscribed by (3) of Regulation 20 which states that a prior show cause notice before seizure of equipment has to be given. It is an admitted fact that a show cause notice was given by PEMRA to the petitioner before the exercise the power under Regulation 20. The rules and regulations cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are with regard to the search warrant a.Nd do not apply to the facts of the present case.
7. The learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3 quite candidly stated that the petitioner has to clear the arrears of PEMRA before seeking renewal of its license. It was further stated that if such an application for renewal of license is made after cleating the dues it shall be decided on its merits strictly in accordance with law. The petitioner has utterly failed to convince this Court of any violation of law, rules and regulations by the PEMRA authorities. In fact the petitioner has no equity in his favour being a defaulter of arrears and having continued with its operations without a valid license. In the said circumstances, PEMRA was well within its rights to have taken the action that it took in terms of power conferred on it by Regulation 20 of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Distribution Service Operation) Regulations, 2011 in the result this petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.