1. ' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.--By consent, the petition is admitted for its disposal on merits.
2. ' Petitioner, Jilani Sadique, who claims to be General Secretary of Consumer Protection Council, has impugned the amendment in subsection (2) of section 2 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 (Act No,XVII), hereinafter called the Act, introduced by Ordinance XXVIII of 1984 (Finance Ordinance.
3. 1984) whereby certain amendments were made in the Act. After amendment, subsection (2) of section 2 of the Act reads as under:-- "'Wireles Telegraphy Apparatus' means any apparatus, appliance, instrument or material used or capable of use in wireless communication and includes video recording or reproducing apparatus, television broadcast receiving satellite antenna and any article determined by rule made under section 10 to be wireless telegraphy apparatus, but does not include any such, apparatus, appliance, instrument or material commonly used for other electrical purposes, unless it has been specially designed or adapted for wireless communication or forms part of some apparatus, appliance, instrument or material specially so designed or adapted, nor any article determined by rule made under section 10 not to be wireless telegraphy apparatus; and By said amendment, after the words apparatus; the words "and video recording or reproducing apparatus" were inserted.
4. ' The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that in Daily "The News", Karachi dated November 28, 1998, an advertisement appeared, having title "T.V. Set owners door-to-door checking from 1st December, 1998". According to this advertisement, M/s. Research and Collection Services (RCS) Composite Teams consisting of one or two Data Acquisition (DA) Staff, accompanied by an S.M.S. Guard would be carrying out checking about Licences of T.V., V.C.R. Or Dish Antenna. According to the petitioner, the fees being collected by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 in respect of V.C.R. Or Dish Anteena, under section 10 of the Act, the video recording or reproducing apparatus (Possession and Licensing)
5. Rules, 1984, hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1984, and the Television Practicing Receiving Satellite Antenna (Possession and Licensing) Rules, 1991 is improper, illegal and not warranted by law. The petitioner, therefore, has prayed for the following reliefs:--
(i) Amendment in 1984 in section 2(2) of Act XVII of 1933 is unconstitutional.
(ii) Proposed charging of fees on V.C.R. By respondent is illegal.
(iii) The subject Rules of 1984 are outside the Act and ultra vires and thus are illegal.
(iv) Proposed action of the R.C.S. Composite Team to visit houses and conduct house to house search is illegal and the respondents should stop all steps/actions towards achieving the objective.
6. ' Under Rules, 1984 Video recording or reproducing apparatus, has been defined as follows:--
(h) "video recording or reproducing apparatus" means any apparatus which is capable of being used for recording or reproducing image and sound of a television programme or motion picture or series of motion pictures either by itself or with the addition of electric power, aerial valve or similar other device, and includes any apparatus which is temporarily incapable of being so used by reason of defect in its component parts or in the electric wiring; and Section 10 of the Act, empowers the Central/Federal Government to make rules under the Act and the Rules of 1984 and 1991 have been framed under this section.
7. ' The case of respondent No,1, in brief, is that M/s. R & CS have been awarded job of detection of defaulters of payment of fee of :T.V./V.C.R./Dish Antenna Licence, for a period from 1-7-1998 to 30- 6-1999, with approval of competent authority. Further, it is alleged that the staff, deployed by them have further been authorized for door-to-door checking for above purpose and the same is permissible under clauses 12 and 13 respectively of T.V./V.C.R./Dish Antenna Licence Fee Rules.
8. ' It is contended on behalf of petitioner that V.C.R. Is not a Wireless Telegraphy Apparatus, as defined under subsection (2) of section 2 of the Act. Further, it is contended that V.C.R. Being not a Wireless Telegraphy Apparatus, no fee under Rules of 1984 could be charged thereon. Learned counsel also argued that Licence Fee of V.C.R., in fact, is a Tax fees upon the citizens with no service to them, as such, it is illegal.
9. ' As against above, Mr. Kamaluddin, learned counsel for respondent No,1 argued that like Television, V.C.R. Is an apparatus, which is capable of being used for reproducing communication already telecast either by itself or with the addition of electric power, aerial valves or similar other devices.
10. He cited M/s. Hotel Plaza International v. Pakistan Television Corporation Ltd., PLD 1986 Karachi 432.
11. ' The first point to be determined is that whether V.C.R. Falls within the scope of "Wireless Telegraphy Apparatus".
12. ' Learned counsel for petitioner contends that it does not, while learned counsel for respondents have argued otherwise. It is noted that before amendment the words "video recording or reproducing apparatus" were not in section 2 of the Act. It is not denied that V.C.R. Is used for recording or producing image and sound of a television. Programme or Motion pictures etc. And for this reason it was declared as Wireless Telegraphy Apparatus.
13. ' It is significant to note that in the original definition of 'Wireless Telegraphy Apparatus' in the Act, wherein the words "video recording or reproducing apparatus" were not there, still it was provided that it included any article determined by Rules made under section 10 of the Act to be "Wireless Telegraphy Apparatus". It means that the Legislature in its wisdom kept the scope open, keeping in view the possible progress of technology in that regard. Original definition in the Act was not exhaustive. Normally the word 'include is used for the purpose of enlarging the meaning of ordinary words. In the definition, it was used in that sense. With the advancement of technology, the amendment was brought in 1984, which is in line with the spirit of the Act. Already telecast programme of P.T.V. Can be reviewed on V.C.R. Through video cassettes. Likewise, it can be used for reviewing already telecast Communications. It being so, it cannot be argued that V.C.R. Has no nexus with T.V. Or with the services tendered by P.T.V. Accordingly, ,we hold that V.C.R. Falls within the scope of subsection (2) of` section 2 of the Act, as amended.
14. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner next argued that the Agreement, dated 5th June, 1998 between Pakistan Television Corporation Limited and M/s. Research and Collection Services (RCS) regarding collection of Licence Fee, is contrary to the provisions of section 5 of the Act, which only authorises to Director-General Post Office or an officer authorised by him to issue licence for possessing Wireless Telegraphy Apparatus. It is noted that the Act was also amended by Ordinance X of 1970, whereby the following was added in section 5 of the Act:-- "Provided that where, by an agreement with the Pakistan Television Corporation Limited, the Central Government appoints the Corporation to be its agent in the matter of issuing licences to possess television receiving apparatus, the authority competent to issue licences to possess such apparatus shall be the Chairman of that Corporation or a person authorised by him in this behalf, who may issue licences in such manner, on such conditions and subject to such payments as may be prescribed."
15. A perusal of above provisions shows that the Chairman of Corporation is competent to authorise any person on his behalf to issue licences in such manner or on such conditions as may be prescribed. It being so, no illegality was committed, if the licences are issued within the limits as prescribed by section 5 of the Act.
16. ' In consequence, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.