=> KARACHI: The Sindh High Court on Tuesday dismissed
KARACHI: The Sindh High Court on Tuesday dismissed petitions against the ban on the transmission of Geo TV channels as not maintainable.
The Independent Media Corporation and Bird (Pvt) Ltd had challenged the ban on the transmission of Geo News, Geo Entertainment, Geo Super and Aag TV channels by the government.
The SHC’s division bench comprising Justice Munib Ahmed Khan and Justice Dr Rana Mohammad Shamim dismissed both the petitions being non-maintainable on the ground that under the Provisional Constitution Order and emergency rule, the petitions were not maintainable under the Article 199 of the Constitution because many fundamental rights were suspended.
The petitioners’ counsel, Mohammad Ali Mazhar, argued that on the last date of hearing, the deputy attorney general had raised two points that Geo News was off-aired from Dubai and a similar petition by an individual had been filed in the Supreme Court and on the above grounds, further time was sought by him.
He submitted that in spite of availing many chances, no comments have been filed by the respondents. He said now both the objections raised by the DAG on the last date had become irrelevant and insignificant because the Dubai Media City had already restored the transmission of Geo News and the petition filed by one stranger in the Supreme Court of Pakistan had been returned to him with the office objections that the petitioner before the Supreme Court was not an aggrieved person; secondly the scope of Article 184 (3) had been curtailed under the PCO and emergency.
It was further argued by Mohammad Ali Mazhar that being an aggrieved person, the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution was still available to the petitioners. The petitioner has obtained landing right licences from Pemra against the payment of valuable licence fees which are still valid and without issuing any show-cause notice or written order, the transmission of channels have been suspended verbally which is an illegal act, he contended.
The counsel argued that articles 18, 4, 2-A of the Constitution were not suspended under the PCO and being a commercial organisation, the right to business was still available to the petitioners without any hindrance and obstruction. At present, he said, petitions have nothing to do with Article 19 of the Constitution, which relates to the freedom of expression, speech and press.
He said verbal ban on TV channels was totally unlawful and against the articles 18, 4 and 2-A of the Constitution of Pakistan. The bench asked the petitioners’ counsel as to how the petition was maintainable in view of the PCO and emergency when certain fundamental rights had been suspended including Article 19.
He reiterated, in response, that Articles 18 and 4 of the Constitution were not suspended and in support of his argument, he relied upon the full bench judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan pronounced in the Sardar Farooq Ahmed Khan Leghari and Zafar Ali Shah cases in which it had been held that in spite of the PCO or emergency, the Article 199 will remain available to an aggrieved person and the right of judicial review of superior courts was not curtailed.
The counsel also read to the court and differentiated the scope of Article 199 and Article 184 of the Constitution. Regarding the validity of verbal order, he also relied upon another judgment of the SC in which verbal cancellation order of an allotment of plot was declared illegal by the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
It was further argued by the petitioners’ advocate that this action of respondents was also against Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, which makes it mandatory for the respondents to inform the reasons of suspension and also allow opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved persons.
The additional advocate general, who was on court notice, relied upon a condition of landing right license and said that in emergency, the authority might suspend the license. The petitioners’ counsel submitted that this condition was irrelevant in the present circumstances where except the Geo TV’s four channels, all other channels banned on the same day with Geo TV had been now restored and this condition was not applicable to Geo only.
He further argued that even applying this condition, it was necessary for Pemra to issue show-cause notice or reasons to Geo TV channels but except a verbal direction to cable TV operators nothing was communicated in writing. The act of Pemra, besides being discriminatory, is also a serious violation of Section 24-A of General Clauses Act and also against Pemra’s own laws, rules and regulations.
Mohammad Ali Mazhar submitted many other foreign origin channels were being relayed even in emergency situation and Geo — a Pakistani origin channel — was under suspension. On this provision, the bench also asked the additional advocate general that how even in an emergency, a channel could be suspended without any written order or notice, to which no response was given by him, except saying that the petitioners had accepted the terms and conditions of license hence they had no right to challenge it.
The petitioners’ counsel, in response to this argument, argued that the petitioners did not only accept the terms and conditions of their landing right licenses but also accepted all Pemra laws but the present action of suspension of Geo TV transmission was not supported by any Pemra law, rules or regulations and was also against the principle of natural justice.
He further submitted that by these petitions, the PCO or emergency had not been challenged but it was urged that the petitioners were lawful licensee and Pemra being a statutory body should act and treat the petitioners in accordance with the law and their right to business had been seriously infringed by the unlawful ban.
The court observed that on the one hand the DAG took the plea that the government took no action against the petitioners and on the other he stated that the attorney general for Pakistan himself would advance arguments against the petitions.
The bench asked DAG Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui as to what was the actual stand of the government. However, after hearing the arguments, the court dismissed both the petitions on technical grounds.
It was the sixth date of hearing on Tuesday and after at least more than 23 days, the bench dismissed the petitions as being non-maintainable under the PCO and emergency, while no written comments were filed by the respondent in spite of availing many chances. The detailed judgment in the petitions will be given later by the court.
Source: The News
Date:12/5/2007
” 
” 
” 
” 
” 
