Licence

Grievance of appellant was that extension/revalidation of its license was made conditional subject to settlement of financial claim

Validity

Role of Council of Complaints under S.26(2) of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, was restricted to the contents of programs broadcasted and distributed

Complaint in such regard could alone be lodged with Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority which could be marked to Council of Complaints for an opinion and recommendation

Provision of R.8 of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Council of Complaints) Rules, 2010, provided room for grievance of complainant to the extent of a program or advertisement

Only on such count summons could be issued and not otherwise

Like other e-channels who were being charged in terms of Table 1, attached to Schedule B of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Rules, 2009, which included licence fee, renewal fee and 5% annual gross advertisement revenue, appellant was also being charged Gross Annual Advertisement Revenue (GAAR) for their in-house channels only

In case of in-house channel relay, not only license fee and renewal fee was payable but advertisement revenue was also collected, like it was collected from other satellite TV channels

High Court declined to interfere in that matter as notice was rightly issued by the Authority and appellant was supposed to deposit its outstanding dues

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Applicants assailed the rejection of their plaints in suits for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of their respective properties

Applicants had filed an application for extension of "lease" before the Karachi Port Trust and was declined, followed by issuance of notice of eviction, which led to filing of suits

Trial Court rejected the plaints on the ground that suits were barred under S. 87 of Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886 and that no action could have been initiated against any official of the Karachi Port Trust in respect of anything done or purported to have been done in pursuance of the Act without giving to such person one month's previous notice in writing of the intended suit and of the cause thereof, nor after six months from the accrual of the cause of such suits

Validity

Licences on which respondents were relying had expired somewhere in 2013

Karachi Port Trust, after expiry of alleged licenses, had starting receiving the amount as "lease money"

Margin line between a lease and license was very thin and irrespective of as to what was defined in the documents itself, it was the intention of the parties which could ultimately determine relationship and status

Since rental receipts were issued for a lease period, therefore, notice under S.87 of the Karachi Port Trust Act for eviction could not be read to have been issued in pursuance of the Act as a lessee could not be evicted without due process of law

Such action was not deemed to have been taken or purported to have been taken under the said Act

Trial Court should have commenced the trial and disposed of the lis in accordance with law

Cases were remanded to the Trial Court for decision on merits.

Trial Court dismissed suit holding that after dismissal of restoration application under O. IX, R. 9, C.P.C. plaintiff had no cause of action to file second suit

Validity

Both plaints having different reliefs were filed against different defendants

When right of plaintiff was denied, repudiated and resisted then he would have a fresh cause of action to sue and the same would not be contrary to the scheme of O. IX, R. 9, C.P.C.

Plaintiff being bona fide owner of the suit property could not be deprived of his lawful rights on mere legal technicalities

Defendant being a licensee had no locus standi or vested right in the suit property

Plaintiff would be seriously prejudiced if matter was not decided on merits

Paramount consideration for a court of law was to do justice between the parties and in absence of any express bar merely on technical grounds, court should not hesitate to grant proper relief

Plaintiff permitted defendant to reside in the subject property as his younger brother without any payment of monthly rent

Defendant had no registered title or ownership document in his name and he was enjoying possession with the consent and permission of plaintiff without any consideration

Defendant resided in the suit property as a licensee and plaintiff could not claim mesne profit in lieu of occupation of the portion of said property

Proper procedure for the plaintiff was to revoke the licence of defendant by issuing notice and to institute the suit for declaration of the status of defendant as licensee and recovery of possession from the licensee

Plaintiff by filing his earlier suit for ejectment had revoked the licence of defendant

Findings recorded by the courts below were suffering from illegality and material irregularity which were set aside

Case was remanded to the Trial Court for decision of the same on merits after affording the opportunity of leading the evidence to the parties

Second appeal was disposed of in circumstances.

Alteration of terms of a licence, permission or a privilege is inherent to any licensing system.

"Licence", under the law, was personal privilege to do some particular act or series of acts on the land without possessing any estate or interest therein "and was ordinarily revocable at the will of the licensor and was not assignable

Licence was not a contract between the licensor and licensee, but a mere personal permit

Licence was distinguishable from an "easement which implied an interest in the land and a "lease" or right to take the profits of land, whereas a legal right in its strict sense was one which was ascertainable claim, enforceable before the court and administrative agencies

Legal right had to be understood as any advantage or benefit conferred upon the person by a rule of law.

Complainant prayed that he be saved from illegal actions of Sales Tax and Central Excise Department who had issued notice for attachment of his property for recovery of alleged licence fee

Department had replied that the officials of the Directorate General, Inspection and Internal Audit, had made a case against complainant regarding recovery of licence fee and penalty for the period of 1990-91 to 1999-2000 in terms of Rules 74 & 76 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944

Validity

No evidence regarding the service of show-cause notice was available on the order-in-original

Facts of case were found to be identical to an earlier decided complaint

Case regarding recovery of licence fee was initiated at the same time and on the same basis

In the light of S.R.O. 422(I)/97 dated 13-6-1997 complainant was not required to obtain a licence with effect from 1-7-1997

Department's action for period 1-7-1997 to 1999-2000 was without jurisdiction

Limitation for action under Rule 10(1) & 10(2) was one to three years and Rule 10(3) was not applicable as no false document was filed

Action for recovery of licence fee for the period 1-7-1997 to 30-6-2000 was illegal and without jurisdiction

Federal Tax Ombudsman, therefore, recommended that all actions taken in the case of the complainant with regard to levy of licence fee including the issue of recovery notice be cancelled and dropped.

Agreement whereby licence was granted to the licensee had option to terminate contract at any time on written notice of three days in event of failure of licensee to fulfil any condition under agreement

Licensee was alleged to have charged Parking Fee at higher rates than was agreed by agreement

Authority, in circumstances, was justified in terminating licence granted to licensee

Licence could be revoked by a grantor unless it was coupled with transfer of property and such transfer was in force or licensee acting upon licence had executed work of a permanent character and incurred expenses in execution

Such being not the position in the present case licence was rightly terminated by Authority.

Licence Bare licence i.e. licence which was not coupled with a grant of interest to the licensee would remain revocable at the pleasure of the licensor.

Licence (simpliciter) is a privilege and not a legal right

Leave to appeal granted to examine appellants' contention that in point of fact appellants challenged judgment and preliminary decree and had prayed that said decree be modified to extent that it rejected appellant' claim that prospecting licence for coal mining granted to respondent belonged to all partners of firm.

S. 12 (2) read with Emigration Rules, 1979, r. 8(5)-Overseas Employment Promoter's Licence, grant or refusal of-vires of rules-Federal Government possesses jurisdiction to grant or refuse to grant Overseas Employment Promotor's Licence and matter within its sole discretion Government if deciding to grant such licence could impose conditions as prescribed by law-Non-transferability of licence provided under r. 8 (5), held, can be termed as a condition referred to in S. 12, hence, no inconsistency exists between S. 12 and rules framed under Ordinance.-[Interpretation of statutes].

Licence - Mere privilege, not a right-Application followed by deposit of licence fee-Does not confer upon applicant a legal right.

Consideration of application for license under statutory powers-Whether quasijudicial act and whether hearing essential-Whether mandamus could be issued to compel authority to grant a license-English law examined.

Ss. 63 & 64-Licence-Licence renewable from year to year and under bye-laws terminable on notice Licensee cannot claim compensation for removal of construction made by him on property of grantor.

J's licence for a Fair Price shop cancelled and M granted licence as a stop-gap measure pending inquiry against Subsequently licence of J restored and that of M cancelledCancellation of M's licence in circumstance, held, did not call in interference by Court.

S. 60-Licence-Bare licence and licence coupled with grant or interest-Incidents of two-Bare licence, without anything, more, always revocable at will and pleasure of licensor-Revocation of bare licence not affected by fact that licence had been given for valuable consideration-Licence prima facie irrevocable, may, nevertheless, be revocable if parties had, expressly or by implication, agreed that licence shall be revocable-Breach or threatened breach of licence-Remedy, in case of revocable licence, lies in damages and not by way of injunction-Both remedies open in case of irrevocable licence-Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 5, 21 & 52.

Licensee entitled to notice before eviction-Contractual licence-Breach of, by licensor-Licensee may sue for damages but not for permanent injunction-Principles underlying Easements Act (V of 1881), applicable as rules of justice, equity and good conscience

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 54 not applicable

[Jagat Singh v. The District Board, Amritsar I L R 22 Lah. 413 and Prosonna Coomar Singha v. Ram Commar Ghose I L R 46 Cal. 640 ref].

After grant of licence, licencee has a "right" to do acts permitted by the licence-[Franklin v. Minister of Town and County Planning 1948 A C 87 and Tariq Transport Co. Lahore v. Sargodha-Bhera Bus Service P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 437 ref.]

-Licence-Difference-Transfer of interest in premises (lease)-Exclusive possession of transferee-Right assignable, heritable, and constitutes property-Substance of document to be looked to, not technical terms embodied in document-Payment of monthly sum as consideration not decisive test, nor fixation of a period of time-Transfer of Property Act (D-of 1882), S. 105-Easements Act (V of 1882), S. 52.

Arrangement between Government and licensee of liquor-Not a contract-Licence a privilege.

Inherent in power to grant-Arms Act (XI of 1878), S. 17.

Licence In its specific sense, to license means to confer on a person the right to do something which otherwise he would not have the right to do. A licence is in the nature of a special privilege rather than a right common to all, and is often required as a condition precedent to the right to carry on business or to hold certain classes of property within the jurisdiction.

Lease-Licence-Distinction-Test. The decisive test is whether upon its true construction the effect of the document is to give exclusive possession to the holder of the so-called permit.

Lease or licence-Municipality granting right to collect fees-Grant held was only a licence and not a lease-It did not require registration.