P L D 2017 Sindh 661 (PLP)

AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.

This appeal arises under section 30(A) of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 ("PEMRA Ordinance") against an order of the Authority dated 2-5-2017. Applications under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with section 151 C.P.C. listed at Sr.Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 have been filed by the intervenors Mr, Shoaib Ahmed Sheikh, Mr. Viqas Atiq, Mrs. Ayesha Shoaib Sheikh and Mrs. Sarwat Bashir, all directors of the appellant. They prayed to implead/add them as party to the instant proceedings as the security clearance of the Intervenors was allegedly refused by the Ministry of Interior, which is subject matter of instant proceeding. Since the interevenors are directors of the appellant and allegedly their security clearance was refused by the Ministry of Interior therefore, for just and proper decision of the instant Misc. Appeal, the instant applications are allowed and the interevenors being necessary and essential party are impleaded to the proceedings. Appellant is private limited entities registered with Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan under the laws of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and is involved in the business of Satellite Television and Broadcasting. Appellant is duly licensed to operate satellite TV channels under the names of "Bol News" and "Pak News" collectively known as "BOL Media Group" and to function and handle all such dealings related to the broadcasting, marketing and other affairs of said TV Channels in Pakistan. Through the impugned order dated 02.05.2017 passed by the respondent No.1 (Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, Islamabad, the satellite TV broadcast station licences of M/s Labbaik (Pvt) Ltd. Karachi i.e. BOL News and Bol Entertainment (Pak News) bearing No.F.10-2(26)STV-2005 and No.F.10-2(44)STV-2006 were revoked with immediate effect and it was ordered to immediately stop operating the satellite TV channels namely "Bol News and Bol Entertainment (Pak News) and surrender the licences in original bearing No.F.10-2(26)STV-2005 (Bol News) and No.F.10-2(44)STV-2006 (Bol Entertainment/Pak News) immediately to PEMRA and clear all outstanding dues with concerned PEMRA regional offices, which has been challenged in this Misc. Appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the top most and relevant agency of the country namely "ISI" has given security clearance to the new sets of directors of the appellant after fulfillment/compliance of all legal formalities, which was not denied by the respondent No.1 anywhere but they verbally denied that they have not received any security clearance from the "ISI". He further contends that earlier respondent No.1 (PEMRA) issued a Show Cause Notice on 23.12.2016, which was challenged in MA No.58/2015 and the operation of above show cause notice was suspended by this Court. It is further contended that the letter was issued by the respondent No.3 on 30.03.2016 whereby the security clearance to the appellant was regretted and after about more than six months on 19.10.2016 the respondent No.1 had withdrawn its decision dated 23.09.2015 whereby the respondent No.1 suspended the licenses of the appellant when regretted letter was supposed to be in the knowledge of respondent No.1. It is also urged that the appellant was not informed about regret of security clearance. He further urged that with mala fide intention and without hearing the appellant the licences of the newly added directors of the appellant M/s. Labbaik (Pvt) Ltd., were revoked by the impugned order. Learned. Additional Attorney General for Pakistan contends that they have not received the security clearance from the "ISI" and as per Divisional Bench order of this Court the PEMRA/respondent No.1 wrote a letter to the Ministry of Interior/respondent No.3 and they regretted the security clearance of the newly added directors of the appellant. He further contends that many agencies are working under the Ministry of Interior/respondent No.3 and only one "ISI" is not working in the country and "FIA" is also working under the respondent No.3/Ministry of Interior, who is complainant upon newly added directors and such case is pending before the Court having jurisdiction. Learned Additional Attorney General for Pakistan supported the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1/PEMRA. Learned counsel for the PEMRA contends that on the direction of this Court respondent No.1/PEMRA wrote a letter dated 24.06.2015 to the respondent No.3/Ministry of Interior, who regretted the security clearance of the newly added directors of the appellant. He further contends that show cause notice was withdrawn on 19.10.2016, at that time the licences of the appellant was suspended and show cause notice was withdrawn, thereafter, first they issued show cause notice and when the appellant filed reply to show cause notice chance of personal hearing was given to the appellant and then opportunity of hearing was also afforded to the counsel of the complainants, therefore, after completing all formalities the respondent No. 1/PEMRA passed the impugned order and revoked the licences of the appellant and no any illegality and irregularity has been committed while passing the order. He verbally denied the security clearance issued by the "ISI". I have heard M/s. Anwer Mansoor Khan, Shahab Sarki and Adnan Memon counsel for the appellant, Mr. Zahid F. Ibrahim counsel for respondent/PEMRA, Mr. Abdul Karim Khan advocate for intervenors, Mr. Salman Talibuddin Additional Attorney General for Pakistan and Mr. Muhammad Javed K.K. Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan and carefully perused the material available on record with their assistance. It is an admitted position that "ISI" issued security clearance to the appellant and such security clearance is available at page-53 whereas such security clearance was regretted by the respondent No.3/Ministry of Interior vide letter dated 30.03.2016 without any reasons and justifications. A perusal of record further reflects that vide letter dated 15.03.2016 security clearance was issued by the "ISI" on the request of Mr. Hassan Ullah Tareen, Section Officer (KP), Ministry of Interior as such security clearance bears reference of letter No.9/75/2013/S-III dated 18.08.2015. Respondent No.1 wrote a letter dated 24-7-2015 to the respondent No.3 to process the case for security clearance of M/s Labbaik (Pvt.) Ltd. (appellant) and respondent No.3 vide letter dated 05.08.2015 requested to furnish the particulars of directors, which was complied with vide letter dated 13.08.2015 and thereafter, same Hasan Ullah Tareen, Section Officer, Ministry of Interior issued the regretted letter without any reasons and justifications of regretting the security clearance. As per contention of the learned counsel for the appellant the impugned order was passed by the respondent No.1 without hearing the appellant. A perusal of record further shows that the impugned order is based on letter dated 30.03.2016 issued by the Ministry of Interior whereby security clearance of new directors of the appellant was regretted, therefore, for the sake of convenience said letter is being reproduced as under:-- "MOST IMMEDIATE" GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN MINISTRY OF INTERIOR ************** Subject: IN THE MATTER OF TWO CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NOS.D-2687/2013 AND D-3224/2015, FILED BY M/S LABBAIK (PVT) LTD. BEFORE HON'ABLE SINDH HIGH COURT, KARACHI SECURITY CLEARNACE. Reference PEMRA Hqrs 'letter No.10-2(44)STV-2011/680, dated 13.08.2015, on the subject noted above.

2. The request is regretted, please. (Hassan Ullah Tareen) Section Officer (KP) The General Manager (Licensing) PEMRA, Hqrs. 4th Floor, Mauve Areas, G-811, Islamabad M/o Interior's U.O. No.9/75/2013-S-II, dated 30.03.2016 ." Letter whereby security clearance was regretted by the respondent No.3, referred to above, is without any reasons and justification whereupon the impugned order is based. Therefore, impugned order dated 02.05.2017 is hereby set-aside and the matter is remanded back with direction to the respondent No.1/PEMRA to verify security clearance issued by the "ISI" and the respondent No.3 is also directed to issue fresh letter in respect of security clearance with detailed reasons and justifications. Thereafter, respondent No.1 to decide the matter afresh after affording opportunities of hearing to the parties. Instant Misc. Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms along with all pending applications. MH/L-5/Sindh Case remanded