KARACHI: The high court of Sindh today dismissed as non-maintainable the petitions of Independent Media Pvt Ltd and Birds Pvt Ltd by which hey had questioned closure of four TV channels of GEO network. The bench comprising Justice Muneeb Ahmed Khan and Justice Dr Rana Shamim Ahmed decided maintainability of the petitions after hearing them for 19 days. Petitioners’ counsel Muhammad Ali Mazhar drew the attention of the bench towards an order of the office of Supreme Court under which the petition challenging PCO and promulgation of emergency was returned to the petition with objections that the scope of article 184(3) was limited and the petitioner was not an aggrieved party.
He stated that earlier deputy attorney general Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui had opposed the petitions on two, that is, the government had not taken any action against the petitioners and their transmissions were suspended by Dubai Media City authorities and that a writ petition had been field in Supreme Court against the PCO and proclamation of emergency under article 184(3) of the constitution and the high court should not hear a petition on the same subject matter.Muhammad Ali Mazhar pleaded that both these issues stand resolved as the Dubai government had restored GEO news, the only channel of GEO network which was ordered to be shut down by them, and the petition filed in Supreme Court had been returned to the petitioner with office objections.
It was further argued by Mr.Mazhar that being an aggrieved person, the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution is still available to the petitioners. The petitioner has obtained landing right licenses from PEMRA against the payment of valuable license 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.
The court made observation that on one hand the DAG took plea that government took no action against the petitioners and on the other he stated that the attorney general of Pakistan himself would advance arguments against the petitions. The bench asked DAG Rizwan Siddiqi as to what was the actual stand of the government. The DAG, assisted by advocate general Sindh Masood Noornai, referred to para 26(4) of the landing rights license granted to the petitioners and said under the said para PEMRA could take any action against them.
The bench observed the action could not be taken without a show cause notice. It further observed that article 19, which relates to freedom of speech and expression, had been suspended by Proclamation of Emergency.Muhamamd Ai Mazhar pointed that his petitions did not touch upon the point of freedom of speech and expression.
The petitioner, he said, had paid Rs3.5 million for landing rights license which could not be revoked without a notice. He said if GEO had committed any violation why action was not taken against it under six existing laws which regulate electronic media activities. He said emergency always aims at external dangers. There are many Indian channels which are being shown in Pakistan but no action was taken to proscribe them and GEO network was off hooked without any reason.
The DAG said he had asked PEMRA to prepare comments and was waiting for the same. He said the article of the constitution which protects citizen against discriminatory actions is suspended under the proclamation of emergency. Both the DAG and AG Sindh were of the opinion the petitions were not maintainable as the petitioners were not aggrieved parties and that they themselves had accepted the condition that PEMRA could take action against them. He said Supreme Court had recently struck down cancellation of a plot by capital development authority on the grounds it was done without serving a show cause notice.
The petitioners’ counsel admitted that the whole document was signed and accepted by the petitioners but pleaded that his petitions were neither directed against proclamation of emergency nor against PCO nor PEMRA ordinance. He said PEMRA had taken a unilateral and discriminatory action against the petitioners and they had challenged the said action which is hit by article 18 of the constitution. He reiterated that the said article, protecting right of economic activities of citizen, had not been suspended by the emergency.
He said petitioners had only one plea that they should be treated in accordance with law. He said under section 24 of the general clauses act, no action can be taken against anyone without serving him a show cause notice. The action against the petitioners was taken verbally and there was not even a written order. The counsel argued that petitioners were aggrieved parties as they were hit by an illegal action of the executive.
He said article 199, which vests writ jurisdiction in a high court and under which the petitions had been field was very clear; it was saved by the Supreme Court in Zafar Ali Shah case. He said more than 19 days had passed yet the government had failed to file comments. He prayed the court to hear his arguments and decide the petitions without allowing further time to the respondents.
Leave Your Comments