Suspension of license

2024 CLC 2113 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

R.108-OConstitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionQuo warranto, writ ofSuspension of licensePowers of RegulatorsScope

Petitioner assailed appointment of respondent as Election Commissioner for holding and conducting election of Chairman of Pakistan Cricket Board

Plea raised by petitioner was that the respondent was a practicing advocate who did not get his license suspended

Validity

Respondent was required to get his license suspended within a period of one month from date of appointment and failure whereof could entail misconduct, if any

Petition was premature as period of one month had not elapsed

Proceedings on account of misconduct was the power of Bar Council concerned in terms of provisions of Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973

High Court was not empowered to take cognizance of such misconduct

It was the Bar Council concerned that had been armed with the power to entertain and determine cases of misconduct

Constitutional jurisdiction could not be exercised in a manner which amounted to usurpation and transgression into jurisdiction of the Regulators (i.e., Bar Council concerned)

It was the Bar Council concerned which has to first determine as to whether respondent was required to get his license to practice law suspended or not, keeping in view the nature and duration of assignment accepted by him as Election Commissioner of PCB

High Court declined to interfere in the appointment of respondent

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2018 YLR 1785 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 20(c), 29(6), 30(1)(b) & 30-A

Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Television Broadcast Stations Operations) Regulations, 2012, Regln. 18(c)

Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Council of Complaints) Rules, 2010, R. 8(5)

Imposition of penalty (fine)

Suspension of license

Recommendations of Council of Complaints

Appellant was a licensed broadcasting Media house and Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority suspended its license for seven days

Plea raised by appellant was that the penalty imposed was without giving any opportunity of hearing to it

Contention of authorities was that PEMRA was empowered under law to suspend a license

Validity

Independent of any recommendations of Council of Complaints, Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority had the power under S.29(6) of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, to impose fine of up to one million on a licencee who had contravened any of the provisions of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 or the Rules or Regulations made there-under

Fine under such provisions of law could not be imposed unless the licensee had been given a reasonable opportunity to show cause

No opportunity to show cause was given by Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority at no material stage, to appellant before imposing of fine

High Court declared that imposition of fine in question on appellant by the Authority was not pursuant to S.29(6) of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002

Essential pre-requisite for exercise of powers conferred under S.30(1)(b) of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, were not satisfied

High Court declared recommendations of Council of Complaints to suspend broadcast or CTV station without lawful authority, as the Council was not empowered by S.26(5) of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002

High Court set aside penalty imposed by the Authority to suspend appellant's license

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2015 PTD 948 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Rr.102(4) & 340Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionSuspension of licenseNon-issuance of show-cause noticeF.I.R., registration of

Petitioner was licensed Bonded Carrier and Clearing Agent, whose license was suspended by authorities on the basis of FIR registered against him

Validity

Licensing Authority was required under law to pass a reasoned order of suspension independently after recording its own reasons

Licensing Authority, in addition, was required under law to immediately initiate process of taking further action, which included issuance of proper show cause notice to the person, whose license had been suspended, as an immediate measure in terms of R. 102(4) of Customs Agents Licensing Rules, 2001

Intention behind R. 102 (4) of Customs Agents Licensing Rules, 2001, was not merely to allow suspension of license as an immediate measure and then have it suspended without issuance of a proper show cause notice within a reasonable time, as otherwise, it would defeat the principles of natural justice

Such power of immediate suspension had to be exercised with utmost care and due diligence

Continuous suspension of license of petitioner merely on the ground that F.I.R. had been registered against petitioner as well as the importer by Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation, Federal Board of Revenue, was not warranted in law and could be justified without any further proceedings in the matter in accordance with law

High Court set aside the order passed by authorities suspending license of petitioner

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

2015 PLD 1 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

S. 51Azad Jammu and Kashmir Contempt of Court Act (XXVII of 1993), Ss.3 & 7AdvocateSuspension of licenseContempt of court proceedingsScandalizing the superior judiciaryBringing authority of courts and administration of law into disreputeApplication for unconditional apology at the earliest opportunityExpressing regretEffectRevival of license and discharge of contempt proceedings

Applicant, who was an advocate, wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of the High Court, wherein he made certain allegations against Judges of the High Court and Shariat Court

After issuance of show cause notice applicant-advocate was found guilty of scandalizing the superior judiciary and bringing authority of courts and administration of law into disrepute

Applicant's license of advocacy was suspended and separate contempt proceedings were also initiated against him

Subsequently applicant moved an application to withdraw the letter he had written and tendered unconditional apology and expressed regret for his act

Held, that applicant had tendered unqualified and unconditional apology and had thrown himself at the mercy of the court

Applicant did not try to justify the contents of the letter

Unqualified apology tendered by applicant was endorsed by the President, Senior Vice President and General Secretary of District Bar Association, to which the applicant belonged

Conduct of applicant was seriously condemned by the said representatives of the District Bar Association and they also guaranteed that applicant would not repeat the alleged offence in future

Unqualified apology tendered by applicant was accepted and order of suspension of his license along with contempt notice were discharged

However, High Court observed that applicant should be careful about dignity of courts, that he should act prudently in future and should not indulge in acts which were unbecoming of an officer or of the court, otherwise law would take its own course

Application was allowed accordingly.