This Appeal is preferred under Section 30-A of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 (the "PEMRA Ordinance") read with Rule 28(2) of PEMRA (Distribution Service Operations), Regulations 2011 against the Order of renewal of licence of Respondent No. 2 issued on 16.03.2015 (received on 9.4.2015 in favour of Respondent No. 4).
2. Precisely, the Appellants are cable network operators distribution service operators holding valid licences issued by Respondent No. 2 (PEMRA) with respect to their defined territorial limits.
Respondent No. 4 on 22.5.2006 got the licence from PEMRA as loop holder of M/s. Sky Vision International Cable Network, Multan (Appellant No. 2) which was renewed on 22.5.2011 and 16.3.2015, respectively. However, Respondent No. 2 while renewing the licence as loop holder also allowed Respondent No. 4 to maintain and operate terrestrial cable television transmission system for the area of Rana Street, Sabza Zar Colony and Khan Village, Multan. It was agitated by the Appellants that the grant of licence under the garb of renewal is illegal and without lawful authority.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that Rule 2(o) of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Rules, 2009 (the "PEMRA Rules") defines loop holder as a person who obtains signals from distribution service operator and further distributes to multiple scribers without inserting any further programs or advertisement. Respondent No. 4 obtained the licence as loop holder and received signals from Appellant No. 2 who in turn was holding valid licence in this behalf from PEMRA and was entitled to further distribute the same to multiple scribers of specified areas.
As such, Respondent No. 4 was only entitled to renew his licence as loop holder but instead of doing that, PEMRA illegally issued licence to him in violation of law. No application was invited under Rule 6 of the PEMRA Rules for the grant of licence in violation of Section 24(2) of the PEMRA Ordinance which requires that PEMRA shall process each application for the grant of licence for the establishment and operation of broadcast media or a distribution service operator in accordance with prescribed criteria and shall hold public hearings in the respective capital of each province or as the case may be, in Islamabad, before granting or refusing the licence. As such, the required procedure has not been adopted by PEMRA. Further, PEMRA issued a letter stating therein that all digital and analogue cable TV licences in the country will be granted through open and transparent bidding but it did not follow its own directions. Accordingly, the grant of licence dated 16.3.2015 in favour of Respondent No. 4 is based on mala fide and in violation of law and the same is liable to be cancelled.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the Respondent/PEMRA by relying upon report and parawise comments submitted that all the Appellants are defaulters of PEMRA and as such, have approached this Court with unclean hands. Respondent No. 4 was initially granted licence on 21.6.2007 in the name of M/s. Sajjad Communication Loop holder of M/s. Sky Vision Cable Network, Mutlan for the area of Rana Street, Sabza Zaar Colony and Khan Village only for 5 years subject to terms and conditions specified therein. The licence of Respondent No. 4 was renewed from time to time in accordance with law. Later, Respondent No. 4 submitted an application for renewal and upgradation of its licence. On 26.4.2011, a similar kind of application was also submitted as LH/CTV operators had not deposited any dues for the year 2011-12 to date. Meanwhile, Respondent No. 4 submitted request on 14.4.2015 to add specified areas in its area of operation and also to upgrade its licence category which was processed in accordance with law. No vested right of the Appellants has been infringed. Multiple violations of the Appellants were listed in the parawise comments to demonstrate that they have no vested right or locus standi to question the grant of licence by PEMRA to Respondent No. 4.
5. The question before this Court is limited regarding validity of the licence granted to Respondent No. 4 by PEMRA. Record depicts that Respondent No. 4 initially had the licence of loop holder but later applied for upgradation of its licence and was accordingly grnated licence by PEMRA after following the due process of law. PEMRA itself reported that all the government dues were duly deposited by Respondent No. 4 and the requisite criteria was duly complied with and met by Respondent No. 4. As per Regulation No. 29 of PEMRA (Distribution Service Operations) Regulations, 2011, PEMRA is authorized to upgrade the licence to higher category subject to past performance of the licensee, payment of upgradation fee, technical capability of the licensee, conversion from analogue to digital technology and fulfillment of any other procedural condition as may be prescribed from time to time. As such, no patent illegality is discovered I in terms of licence dated 16.3.2015, whereby, the licence of Respondent No. 4 was upgraded to higher category. The Appellants have no vested right to question the lawful authority conferred upon PEMRA to grant licence within the scope, mandate and parameters of the PEMRA Ordinance. The Appellants have failed to show any breach of law which may require any interference by this Court in the lawful exercise of discretion and authority vested with PEMRA under the PEMRA Ordinance.
6. In view of other above, there is no merit in the instant Appeal and the same is dismissed