CH. MUHAMMAD IQBAL, J.---Through this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 07.11.2017 passed by the Deputy General Manager/Incharge Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority , Regional Office Multan whereby application of the petitioner for issuance of License in "B-1" category in the name and style of M/s Classic Cable Network requested area of operation "Abdul Hakeem" was rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed application on 24.03.2015 to the respondents for grant of license B-I for running a Cable Network in Abdul Hakeem and Provisional Permit was issued but the respondents did not issue license to the petitioner . The petitioner filed Writ Petition No,11148/2017 before this Court in which, a direction was passed on 24.10.2017 to the respondents to decide his application, in compliance of the above said order application of the petitioner was declined vide order dated 07.11.2017 which order is illegal, unlawful, hence this petition and not sustainable in the eye of law , as such, liable to be set aside.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed application for conversion of the instant writ petition into an appeal which is still pending and requested that the said application may be accepted and writ petition may kindly be converted into the appeal. He further submits that petitioner is granted permit to operate his network in ear marked not-urban area of Abdul Hakeem, and petitioner has spent huge amount on establishment of the net work as such he is entitled for the grant of license and order of the authority is illegal, unlawful and not sustainable in the eyes of law , which deserve to be set-aside, and the petition may be accepted as prayed for .
4. Learned counsel for respondents contends that under , Section 30-A of the PEMRA Ordinance, 2002 (Amendment Act, 2007), remedy is provid ed to file an appeal within thirty days. The impugned order was passed on 07.11.2017 and the instant writ petition was filed on 15.11.2017 whereas application for conversion of writ petition into an appeal was filed on 07.11.2018 after lapse of 1 year which is hopelessly time barred and at this stage writ petition cannot be converted into appeal as a tangible right has accrued in favour of the respondent by running of statutory period of limitation for filing the appeal but he had not availed the statutory remedy of an appeal the said relief cannot be granted to him. Further contended that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of permit as he is functioning his business illegally in urban area of Abdul Hakeem.
5. Heard.
6. Admittedly , order was passed by the Deputy General Manager/Incharge Pakist an Electronic Media Regulatory Authority , Regional Office Multan on 07.11.2007 which is an appealable order under section 30-A of PEMRA Ordinance (Amendment Act, 2007) but the petitioner did not avail the remedy and filed the instant writ petition. It is settled law that when statutory remedy is available to the aggrieved party , no writ petition is maintainable. Reliance is placed on the case titled as Indus Trading and Contracting Company v. Collector of Customs (Preventive)
Karachi and others (2016 SCMR 842 ), the relevant portion is reproduced as under:- "4. Before examining the merits of the case, we find it necessary to state that at the stage when regulatory duty was charged, the appellant ought to have challenged the same before the forum provided under the Customs Act.
Instead of doing that, the appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan. Ordinarily , the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 199 of the Constitution should not be invoked where alternative forum under a special law, duly empowered to decide the controversy is available and functioning. Where a special law provides legal remedy for the resolution of a dispute, the intention of the legislature in creating such remedy is that the disputes falling within the ambit of such forum be taken only before it for resolution. The very purpose of creating a special forum is that disputes should reach expeditious resolution headed by quasi judicial or judicial officers who with their specific knowledge, expertise and experience are well equipped to decide controversies relating to a particular subject in a shortest possible time. Therefore, inspite of such remedy being made available under the law, resorting to the provisions of Article 199(1) of the Constitution, as a matter of course, would not only demonstrate mistrust on the functioning of the special forum but it is painful to know that High Courts have been over burdened with a very large number of such cases. This in turn results in delays in the resoluton of the dispute as a large number of cases get decided after several years. These cases ought to be taken to forum provided unde r the Special law instead of the High Courts. Such bypass of the proper forum is contrary to the intention of the provisions of Article 199(1) of the Constitution which confers jurisdiction on the Hi h Court only and only when there is no adequate remedy is available under any law. Where adequate forum is fully functional, the High Courts must deprecate such tendency at the very initial stage and relegate the parties to seek remedy before the special forum created under the special law to which the controversy relates. We could have relegated the appellant to seek remedy before the appropriate forum, however , as the dispute in the present case is now more than twenty years old, we for this reason only as matter of indulgence, proceed to decide the controversy on its merits."
(emphasis supplied)
Reliance is placed on the case titled as Tariq Mehmood A. Khan and others v. Sindh Bar Council and another (2012 SCMR 702 ), the relevant portion is reproduced as under:- "9. Though Section 16 of the Act provides that the vacant seat will be filled during the term of the Council, however , no specific provision has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties; that in the circumstances of the case, the Bar Council ought to have held re-election. We refrain ourselves from expressing any opinion on the issue involved in the present petition, as we are of the opinion that in such like situation the petitioners and the respondents who are practicing Advocates ought to have resolved their disputes before their own forums in terms of Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973, which provides a domestic alternate remedy to the aggrieved persons for redressal of their grievances."
Reliance can also be placed on the case titled as Farzand Raza Naqvi and 5 others v. Muhammad Din through L.Rs, and others (2004 SCMR 400 ), the relevant portion is reproduced as under:-- "4. There is no cavil to the proposition that if the remedy of appeal is available to a party under the statute, without availing such statutory remedy , the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 cannot be invoked and the remedy of writ petition cannot be allowed to be availed as substitution of appeal."
So far as the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that application for conversion of the writ petition into an appeal is concerned. The impugned order was passed on 07.11.2017 against which a remedy of appeal under section 30-A of the PEMRA Ordinance, 2007 is provided and said remedy has not been availed within the stipulated period and very application for conversion of this writ petition into appeal is filed on 07.11.2018 after about one year of passing the impugned order and the period elapsed could not be condoned by converting the writ petition into appeal as such the sought for request is hereby turned down.
7. The petitioner filed application for getting license of Mouza Abdul Hakeem Rural. Admittedly , Mouza Abdul Hakeem is an urban area since 1965 and under Section 19 of the PEMRA Ordinance, 2002 (Amendment Act, 2007), the licence for broadcasting or operation of all broadcast media and distribution services shall be based on prescribed criteria notified in advance and that this shall be done through an open, transparent bidding process.
For ready reference, Section 19 is reproduced as under:- "19. Licence to broadcast or operate.-- (1). The Authority shall have exclusive right to issue licences for the establishment and operation of all broadc ast media and distribution services, provid ed that this exclusive right shall be used by the Authority in conformity with the principles of fairness and equity applied to all potential applicants for licences whose eligibility shall be based on prescribed criteria notified in advance and that this shall be done through an open, transparent bidding process: Provided that the bidding shall be held if the number of applications exceeds the number of licences to be issued by the Authority .
(2) No person shall engage in any broadcast media or distribution service except after obtaining a licence issued under this Ordinance.
(3) Every licence shall be subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed.
(4) The Authority shall have the power to determine number of licences to be issued in each category or sub- category and charge fees at such rates as the Authority may fix from time to time for the grant of a licence and for its annual renewal.
(5) The Authority shall devise a Code of Conduct for programmes and advertisements for compliance by the licensees." The petitioner's application was dismissed by the Deputy General Manager/Incha rge Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority , Regional Office Multan on the ground that request of the petitioner for area of operation falls within urban limit and without taking bidding process through inviting applications as per decision taken by the authority in its 56th meetings wherein it was decided that as per item No,8 licence of the urban area will be issued after hearing public at large. This decision was made on the basis of judgment of the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad passed in Writ Petition No,10 5/09 titled as Messrs Pasban Cable Network and others v. Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority and others vide order dated 02.07.2009. Further documents 'Population Certificate submitted under Regulation 6 of PEMRA (Distribution Service Operations) Regulations, 2011 by the petitioner Imran Hafeez was also found tampered and being beneficiary of the said document he is not absolved of the obligation of presenting such tampered document but no convincing reason has been furnished in this regard whereas the department has also produced the original document in this regard as such it can be observed that the petitioner has made a deliberate attemp t to get the relief on the basis of the tampered document which cast a negative impacts upon his bona fides. The petitioner through application wants to obtain Licence in "B-1" category in the name and style of M/s Classic Cable Network for area of operation of "Abdul Hakeem" which is declared an urban area since 1965 as per unit No,4 of Tehsil Municipal Corporation Kabirwala and under Section 19(2) of PEMRA Ordinance, 2002 (Amendment Act, 2007), licence for such urban area cannot be given mere on the application without inviting applications and floating a tender in this regard. The petitioner was heard personally by the Committee and order was rightly passed by the authority which does not require any interference.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order passed by the competent authority and has also not identified any jurisdictional defect.
9. As such, this writ petition is misconceiv ed and the same is hereby dismissed being devoid of any force. As the main writ petition has been dismissed , resultantly , application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P .C. is also dismissed .