2009 PLP 1415 (CLC)

CH. NAEEM MASOOD, J.

The petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petition No.17184 of 2008, wherein this Court passed the following order on 28-11-2008:

"When confronted that by virtue of section 26 of Pakistan Telecommunication (Reorganization) Act, 1996, it is the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority, which is vested with the powers to regulate the tariff, learned counsel concedes and has submitted that various consumers of PTCL have moved applications before P.T.A. but their applications are undecided. (2) Writ petition of the petitioner at this stage is premature. However, he is directed to approach P.LT.A. for redressal of his grievance, through appropriate representation. Respondent No.3 on receipt of the representation, will look into the grievance of the petitioner and decide the same through, speaking order as early as possible, but not later than one month from today. Disposed of."

2. Though belated respondent No.1/Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) vide letter No.14-497/L&A/PTA/08/532, dated 14-1-2009, inter alia, observed as under: "(2) The authority had already taken notice of the matter itself as well as through a number of complaints it had received earlier. However, your representation coupled with the Honourable Court's order prompted the Authority for an early decision through a speaking order. (3) The authority has deliberated upon the issue at length and has come to the conclusion that UAN is a valuable added service and not a bottle neck service requiring intervention from the Authority. Universal Access Number (UAN) is issued directly by PTA to its users. It is not obligatory for the applicant (user of the number) to restrict itself to one service provided for "backend numbers. (6) PTCL has, nevertheless, been advised vide letter of November 25, 2008 to review and rationalize UAN charges and implement new rates after giving thirty days notice to its customers."

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite, the above referred clear directions by respondent No.1 on 25-11-2008 to the Pakistan Telecommunication Company, the respondent-company has not reviewed and rationalized the UAN charges, nor any thirty days notice had been given to the petitioner or other customers, so far, as required under the above policy letter. This argument is based upon the earlier submissions made in paras.11 and 12 of the writ petition. It is further urged that as respondent No.3 has failed to comply with the directions of the Authority, therefore, the matter be resolved by this Court, in that, the tariff be regulated through the implementation of the directions, dated 25-11-2008 to respondent No.3, to review and rationalize the UAN charges and be refrained from imposing new rates without giving prior notice to the customers.

4. Parawise comments were called from the respondents. Respondents Nso.2 and 3 have submitted the parawise comments. Apart from various preliminary objections on merits the reply to paras. Nos.11 and 12 is as follows:

"(11) Denied. Revision of UAN tariff is neither exorbitant nor without notice. Detailed reply has been given above. (12) Denied. Revision of the UAN tariff is neither exorbitant nor without notice. Detailed reply has been given above."

5. This can be called an evasive reply. In paras.11 and 12 of the writ petition the contention is that respondents Nos.2 and 3 are not complying with the directions of the Authority and the reply is that notice was given to the petitioner and the UAN tariff is not exorbitant and this reply is repeated in paras.11 and 12 of the comments.

6. The functions of the Authority are given in section 4 of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Ordinance, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance), which include such-like directions which have been made as referred to above. The functions of the Authority, powers of the Authority and responsibilities of the Authority are given in sections 4, 5 and 6 of the aforesaid Ordinance. These powers and responsibilities include such-like directions as have been given to respondent No.3. If respondent No.3 was aggrieved from the directions of the Authority/respondent No.1, then it could have resorted to the remedy provided under section 7 of the Ordinance. The stereotype action does not meet the ends of justice. Things mandated under the law to be done in , any particular way must be done in that way.

7. In this view of the matter, respondent No.3 is directed to implement the decision/directions dated 25-11-2008 issued by the Authority within a period of three months positively.

8. In sequel thereof, the writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. M.B.A./D-5/L Order accordingly.