Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 IHC 250118
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Parties: PBA vs PEMRA
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court, officially reported as 2026 IHC 250118. In this matter between PBA and PEMRA, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Islamabad High Court (Honourable Ms. Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz) AUTHOR JUDGE: Honourable Ms. Justice Saman Rafat Imtiaz DECISION DATE: 09-FEB-2026 CASE NO: Writ Petition-1252-2022 CITATION: 2026 IHC 250118 PARTIES: PBA VS PEMRA LAW / SECTION: under Section 30-A, PEMRA Ordinance, 2002 | under Section 19 (4) of the PEMRA Ordinance, 2002 | under Section 13 PEMRA| under Section 24(4) | SUBJECT: Miscelleneous, Other REMARKS: Petitioners are news channels and broad caster. they impugn vires of annual gross advertisement revenue imposed through schedule of PEMRA ordinance, 2000 and PEMRA rules 2009. ============================================================ JUDGMENT SHEET IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 12 52 OF 2022 Pakistan Broadcasters Association and others Versus Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA)
SAMAN RAFAT IMTIAZ, J. 1. This consolidated judgment shall decide the above-captioned Writ Petition and the Appeals which are listed in the Annexure attached hereto. 2. By way of the writ petitions, t he Petitioner No. 1 [Pakistan Broadcasters Association] and the Petitioners No. 2 to 9, who are Satellite Petitioner by : Mr. Faisal Siddiqi, Advocate. (for the Petitioners as well as for the Appellants in all connected appeals) Respondents by : Barrister Ahmed Pervaiz. (for Respondent No. 1 in W.P. No.1252/2022 as well as for the Respondent in C.M.As No. 46, 47, 50, 54, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 66, and 67 of 2022) Barrister Haris Azmat. (for Respondent in C.M.As No. 48, 51, 52, 53, 62, 64, 65, 68, 69, 70, 71, and 72 of 2022) Mr. Mohsin Hameed Dogar, Director General, PEMRA. M/s Khalid Mehmood and Umar Khitab, Director (Legal), PEMRA. Mr. Rohail Ashraf, Law Officer, PEMRA. Mr. Imran Farooq, Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan. Date of Hearing : 8-1-2026.
2 W.P. No. 1252 of 2022
TV Channels seek: declaration that the Annual Gross Advertisement Revenue (“ AGAR”) imposed by way of Schedule-B to the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Rules, 2009 (“PEMRA Rules , 2009”) is ultra vires the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (“ Constitution”) and the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 (“ PEMRA Ordinance , 2002 ”) and that the action taken by the Respondent No.1 [Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority] (“ PEMRA”) to impose and recover AGAR is without jurisdiction, illegal and of no legal effect ; and to permanently restrain PEMRA from taking any adverse and/or coercive action against the Petitioners Nos. 2 to 9 and other members of the Petitioner No.1 in relation to the imposition and recovery of AGAR. 3. The Appellants who are also Satellite TV Channels (including the Petitioners No. 2 to 9), by way of the appeals listed in the Annexure attached hereto, assail their respective Demand Notices dated 10-3-2022, 11-3-2022, 16 -3-2022, and 17 -3-2022 (“Impugned Demand Notice s”) issued by PEMRA in respect of payment of outstanding dues on account of AGAR and seek order s restraining PEMRA from taking any adverse and/or coercive action against the Appellants including but not limited to cancellation or suspension of their licenses pursuant to the Impugned Demand Notices or any like notice or letter. 4. At the outset the learned counsel for the Petitioners/Appellants explained that the vires of AGAR imposed under Table-I contained in Schedule-B to the PEMRA Rules, 2009 has been challenged on legal, jurisdictional, and constitutional grounds by way of the instant Writ Petition as it could not have been challenged in appeal whereas the Impugned Demand Notices demanding payment of AGAR have been assailed by way of the connected appeals filed under Section 30 -A, PEMRA Ordinance, 2002 listed in the Annexure. 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioners/Appellants drew the Court‟s attention to Table-I contained in Schedule B of the PEMRA Rules , 2009 3 W.P. No. 1252 of 2022
and submitted that it provides the Annual Renewal Fee for the Satellite T.V. Station Licenses + 5% / 7.5% of AGAR as per audited accounts. He argued that the PEMRA Ordinance, 2002 does not provide for AGAR for the annual renewal of licenses and as such the impugned AGAR is beyond the purview of the parent law and therefore not sustainable. In fact, he submitted, that except for Table -I of Schedule B the impugned levy does not find mention anywhere even in the PEMRA Rules, 2009. In this respect he read out the provisions of Rules 5, 6(2), 8 and 10 to which Table-I of Schedule B ostensibly relate. Moreover, he sub mitted that AGAR is admittedly a fee which PEMRA cannot charge in the absence of provision of any services in consideration thereof. 6. While continuing his arguments, the learned counsel for the Petitioners/Appellants submitted that even otherwise no demand can be made without issuance of show cause notice. With regard to notice dated 1-6-2009 issued for the annual renewal including an amount equivalent to 7.5% of the annual gross advertisement he highlighted that no notice was issued thereafter till the Impugned Demand Notices in the year 2022. He argued that it is well settled that orders cannot be passed after lapse of years since issuance of notice. He further submitted that notices dated 22- 10-2009 and 3 -11-2009 issued by PEMRA for payment of 5% of gross revenue earned from advertisement were challenged in Constitutional Petition No. 2687 of 2009 before the Sindh High Court which was disposed of vide Order dated 28-05-2014 in view of a statement made by the counsel of PEMRA under instruction not to press the impugned notices but with the contention that proper notices would be issued after promulgation of the PEMRA Rules, 2009 in accordance with the law . PEMRA filed an application for recall which was dismissed vide Order dated 25-4-2018. The C.P.L.A. filed against such order was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 24-5-2019. 7. He referred to the response filed by PEMRA in the instant petition whereby it has been submitted that the Impugned Demand Notices were issued pursuant to Show Cause Notice dated 16 -3-2020. He pointed out 4 W.P. No. 1252 of 2022
that Show Cause Notices dated 16-3-2020 were issued calling for the audited accounts of the Petitioners/Appellants for the financial years from the grant of their respective licenses till 30 -6-2019. He argued that the Impugned Demand Notices are beyond the purview of the Show Cause Notices dated 16 -03-2020 which were merely for submission of annual accounts. 8. After the issuance of the said Show Cause Notices , Notices dated 31-5-2021 and 8-12-2021 were issued for personal hearing. The latter notices stated that PEMRA has constituted a committee for conducting personal hearing of all the licensees and to submit recommendations to PEMRA. The learned counsel emphasized that the committee had been constituted only for the purposes of making recommendations to PEMRA. In this regard, he referred to the Minutes of the 165th Meeting of PEMRA dated 1 -10-2021 whereby committee was constituted for conducting personal hearing of the licensees with regard to the outstanding AGAR and to make recommendations to PEMRA for further decision. He first of all objected that the power to conduct personal hearing cannot be delegated to committee by relying upon Messrs Fun Infotainment Network (SMC -Pvt.) Limited/NEO TV Vs. Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, PLD 2019 Lahore 486 . Next h e argued that delegation is also improper as delegation cannot be made without framing of rules and such delegation has been struck down by the Sindh High Court in the case titled: Pakistan Broadcasters Association Vs. Federation of Pakistan, C.P. No.D-2680 of 2020 which judgment was later on upheld by the Supreme Court. 9. He argued that n otwithstanding the foregoing, the Impugned Demand Notices were issued demanding deposit of outstanding dues on accounts of AGAR. He emphasized that the Impugned Demand Noti ces have been issued by the Deputy Director with the approval of the Chairman, PEMRA and not with the approval of PEMRA and argued that no such authority vests in the Chairman, PEMRA. He referred to Section 8(4) and (5) of the PEMRA Ordinance , 2002 as they existed at the 5 W.P. No. 1252 of 2022
relevant time where under decisions of PEMRA were to be taken by the majority of its members present and all orders, determinations, and decisions of PEMRA were to be taken in writing identifying the determination of the Chairman an d each member separately. He submitted that the omission in Section 8(5) of the PEMRA Ordinance , 2002 vide in 2023 was subsequent to the facts involved in the instant case and therefore is not applicable. He contended that no decision of PEMRA for issuan ce of the Impugned Demand Notices is available. He highlighted that though PEMRA can delegate its powers, responsibilities, or functions to the Chairman or a member etc. , under Section 13 but not the power to grant, revoke, or cancel a broadcast media or distribution service yet the Impugned Demand Notices threaten initiation of suspension/cancellation of licenses. He also referred to the Minutes of the 43rd Meeting of PEMRA held on 2 -6-2007 whereby certain powers were delegated by PEMRA to the Chairman a nd Executive Members of PEMRA including the power to issue show cause notices and highlighted that the Chairman does not even have the power to issue show cause notices alone let alone to issue demand notices threatening cancellation of license. 10. He relied upon Section 24 (4A) and (5) of the PEMRA Ordinance, 2002 as amended by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Amendment) Act, 2023 (“PEMRA Amendment Act, 2023 ”) and stressed that no AGAR can be charged in view thereof and as such the Impugned Demand Notices are patently illegal and not sustainable. 11. Barrister Haris Azmat appearing on behalf of PEMRA in C.M.As No. 48, 51, 52, 53, 62, 64, 65, 68, 69, 70, 71, and 72 of 2022 referred to Section 19 (4) and Section 24 (4) of the PEMRA Ordinance, 2002 as the latter existed prior to the PEMRA Amendment Act, 2023 read with Section 2(s) to emphasize that the levy of AGAR is not ultra vires the parent act a s the said provisions clearly provide that PEMRA has the power to charge annual fees at such rates as PEMRA may fix from time to time. He then referred to Table -I of Schedule B to the PEMRA Rules , 6 W.P. No. 1252 of 2022
2009 to submit that AGAR is simply a component of the Annual Renewal Fee that PEMRA is entitled to charge under the aforementioned provisions of the Act. Similarly, he submitted that the license issued to the Petitioners/Appellants provides that the licensees shall pay to PEMRA such fees as may be determined under Section 19 (4) of the PEMRA Ordinance, 2002 and as prescribed in the Schedule to the Rules. Clause 13 of the license specifically provides that renewal is subject to payment of such Annual Renewal Fee as determined by PEMRAand failure to promptly pay the same shall result in suspension and cancell ation. He argued that the Petitioners/Appellants are estopped from challenging the demand of AGAR as they were aware of their liability under the PEMRA Rules, 2009 as well as their licenses and yet chose to apply for the license and obtain ed the same, t herefore, they cannot now turn around and question their liability under the terms of such license. The license conditions also require the licensees to submit their annual returns and particularly statements of annual gross revenue which the licensee is liable to submit under Rule 17 of the PEMRA Rules, 2009 the vires of which has not been challenged by the instant Petitioners/Appellants and has already been upheld by the Sindh High Court in Shamal Media Services (Private) Limited Vs. Federation of Pakistan, C.P. No. D-1151 of 2020 vide judgment dated 21 -10-2024. He emphasized that Show Cause Notice dated 16 -3-2020 has not been challenged and only the Impugned Demand Notices dated 11 -3-2022 are under challenge. He acknowledged that the Chairman, PEMRA alone cannot issue notices but emphasized that the notice under challenge in the instant proceedings are not show cause notices. They are simply notices sent in routine to demand payment of the AGAR component of the annual fee as per the PEMRA Ordinance, 2002, PEMRA Rules, 2009, and license which need not be issued by the Chairman or under the approval of PEMRA as it only constitutes an administrative action. In answer to a question of the Court he submitted that the AGAR portion also does not require any co mplicated determination (in comparison to the fixed component) as it is the stipulated percentage of the amount of AGAR which is easily discernable 7 W.P. No. 1252 of 2022
from the accounts. He explained that in case of non -compliance of the Impugned Demand Notices PEMRA shall be entitled to issue show cause notices for cancellation/suspension of licenses. Lastly, he submitted that this constitutes pre -mature litigation as there is n o order passed by PEMRA. He pointed out that in fact the Petitioners /Appellants have admitted that there is no order of PEMRA. 12. Barrister Ahmed Pervaiz appearing on behalf of PEMRA, in W.P. No.1252 of 2022, and C.M.As No. 46, 47, 50, 54, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 66, and 67 of 2022 referred to Rule 5 of the PEMRA Rules, 2009 and Regulation 2(b) and (c) as well as 7(1) and 12 to submit that the AGAR portion of the Annual Renewal Fee has statutory backing. He explained that first notices for account s were issued in the year 2009 after promulgation of the PEMRA Rules , 2009 but c ould not be followed up due to pending litigation which concluded in the year 2019 and hence, issuance of the Impugned Demand Notices. He submitted that there are different types of fees under Article 73(3) of the Constitution which differentiates between a license fee and a fee charged for any service rendered. In this respect he relied upon Attock Petroleum Limited (APL) Vs. National Highway Authority, 2022 PTD 222; Shell Pakistan Limited Vs. Capital Development Authority, PLD 2015 Islamabad 36; Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) Vs. Trade Serve International (Pvt.) Ltd. , 2020 SCMR 206 ; Trade Serve International (Private) Limited Vs. Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, PLD 2017 Lahore 563 ; and Messra D.S. Textile Mills Li mited Vs. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2016 Lahore 355 and therefore argued that the license fee in question does not need to be in consideration of any service. He argued that the amount charged is not excessive as the stipulated percentage is not calculated on the gross revenue rather it is on the gross ad vertisement revenue alone. He vehemently denied that the amendment to Section 24 vide the PEMRA Amendment Act, 2023 can be applied retrospectively. He explained that AGAR would not be charged on renewal from the date of the amendment however, the Impugne d 8 W.P. No. 1252 of 2022
Demand Notices pertain to previous renewal s, which are not illegal in view of the amendment which is prospective in nature. 13. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the Petitioners/Appellants submitted that Section 30-A of the PEMRA Ordinance, 2002 provides for an appeal to the High Court against an order or decision of PEMRA. He explains that although there is no order or decision of PEMRA in the instant cases however the reasons why the appeals have been filed to challenge the procedural aspects a nd due process of the case is because previously when writ petitions were filed against orders/decisions of the Chairman they were converted into appeal by the Sindh High Court by holding that such grounds could be taken in appeal . He cites Jaag Broadcasting Systems (Private) Limited Vs. Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, 2020 CLC 1081 and Karam Shah Vs. Provincial Secretary Forest Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, 2016 CLC 1085 by holding that whether the impugned notices/orders constituted orders of the Authority or not could also be challenged in appeal. Writ has been filed by the Petitioners/Appellants to challenge the vires of the demand as that cannot be challenged by way of appeal and in this respect he relied upon Messra Chanar Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector (Sales Tax), 2006 SCMR 901 ; Messrs Dewan Cement Ltd. Vs. Pakistan, 2010 PTD 1717; and Messrs Kamalia Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Superintendent Intelligence and Investigation (Customs and Central Excise), Regional Office , 2002 PTD 632. He also relied upon Messrs Fun Infotainment Network (SMC -Pvt.) Limited/NEW TV Vs. Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, PLD 2019 Lahore 486 which is a judgment passed in F.A.O. 14. With regard to the terms of the license he argued that all the licenses agreed to was to abide by the PEMRA Rules which does not mean that the Petitioners/license es lost the right to challenge any unconstitutional rule introduced by PEMRA. He submitted that Section 24(4A) of the PEMRA Ordinance , 2002 is inherently retrospective because the license are not issued or renewed annually rather they are issued for varying periods of 5, 10, or 15 years. He relied upon Collector 9 W.P. No. 1252 of 2022
of Customs Vs. Sheikh Spinning Mills, 1999 SCMR 1402 to argue that no additional fee can be charged for the same purpose and therefore since the annual fee comprises a fixed component no additional component can be charged in the form of AGAR. He also argued that the Impugned Demand Notices are not as innocuous as made out by the learned counsel for PEMRA as they threatened cancellation of the licenses which is beyond the purview of an ordinary officer and even the Chairman, PEMRA alone. 15. Since the questions raised in the instant matters require interpretation of the Constitution and the laws, notice under Order XXVII-A, CPC was issued to the Attorney General of Pakistan in response to which he has filed written arguments on 14-1-2026 expounding upon the relevant statutory provisions and substantive difference between “annual fee” and “license renewal fee” and the object and effect of the PEMRA Amendment Act, 2023 and PEMRA‟s decision in its 186th Meeting. 16. I have heard the learned counse ls for the parties and perused the available record with their assistance. Whether AGAR contained in Table-I of Schedule B of the PEMRA Rules, 2009 is ultra vires the PEMRA Ordinance, 2002? 17. Section 19 of the PEMRA Ordinance , 2002 provides for the issuance of licenses for the establishment and operation of all broadcast media and distribution services. Sub -section (4) of Section 19 empowers PEMRA to, inter alia, charge fees at such rates as PEMRA may fix from time to time for the grant of a license and for its renewal. Similarly, sub- section (4) of Section 24 of the PEMRA Ordinance , 2002 (prior to the amendment introduced in 2023) provided that the license shall be valid for a period of 5, 10 or 1 5 years subject to payment of the annual fee prescribed from time to time. The term “prescribed” has been defined in Section 2(s) to mean prescribed by the rules or regulations made by PEMRA. 10 W.P. No. 1252 of 2022
18. Section 39 of the PEMRA Ordinance , 2002 provides the power of PEMRA to make rules with the approval of the Government by notification in the official gazette to carry out the purposes of the PEMRA Ordinance, 2002 and under sub -section 2(b) specifically to prescribe the terms and conditions of t he license including fee to be charged in connection with the issuance of licenses and related matters. Th e PEMRA Rules, 2009 were made by PEMRA with the approval of the Federal Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section (1) of Section 39 PEMRA Ordinance, 2002. 19. Rule 5(1) of the PEMRA Rules , 2009 prescribes that the license shall be granted for a period of 5, 10 or 15 years subject to payment of fees as set out in Schedule B. Table-I of Schedule B provides the fee for TV station licenses including for Satellite TV Station Licenses of various categories. Such fee includes the application processing fee; license fees; and Annual Renewal Fee. The Annual Renewal Fee for Satellite TV Station Licenses consists of the following two components: (a) fixed fee ranging from Rs. 300,000 to Rs. 1,000,000/- depending on the category of Satellite TV Stations; plus (b) fee equivalent to 5% or 7.5 % (depending on the category of Satellite TV Station) of the Annual Gross Affairs Advertisement Revenue as per the audited accounts. 20. Thus, AGAR is a component of the Annual Renewal Fees which PEMRA is authorized to charge as per Section 19(4) read with Section 24 (4) (before the PEMRA A mendment Act, 2023 ) of the PEMRA Ordinance, 2002 at such rates as PEMRA may fix from time to time which rates have been prescribed under Rule 5 read with Table-I of Schedule B of the PEMRA Rules, 2009. As such, the AGAR component of the Annual Renewal Fee cannot be considered ultra vires the PEMRA Ordinance, 2002. 21. However, PEMRA has demanded AGAR has been demanded vide 11 W.P. No. 1252 of 2022
the Impugned Demand Notices issued to the Petitioners Nos. 2 to 9 who are the Appellants in C.M.As Nos. 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, and 54 from 2008 to 2021 (while the remaining Appellants have been charged from the year when the respective Appellant became a licensee of PEMRA till the year 2021) despite the fact that PEMRA Rules, 2009 by way of which AGAR was imposed for the first time were not framed till December, 2009. Therefore, any amount demanded as AGAR by way of the Impugned Demand Notices which pertains to a period prior to the framing of PEMRA Rules, 2009 is illegal, unlawful and beyond the mandate of the law. Whether the Impugned Demand Notices have been issued by PEMRA? If not, to what effect? 22. The Petitioners/Appellants objected that the I mpugned Demand Notices cannot be considered as having been issued by PEMRA which according to Section 6 of the PEMRA Ordinance, 2002 consists of a Chairman and 12 Members whereas the Impugned Demand Notices have been issued by the Deputy Director (Operatio ns-Broadcast Media) with the approval of the Chairman, PEMRA. 23. However, provisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioners/Appellants in support of this argument pertain to the power to, inter alia , suspend or revoke the license. For instance, the learned counsel for the Petitioners/Appellants argued that under Section 30 it is PEMRA that has the power to revoke or suspend the license of a Broadcast Media or Distribution Service by an order, in wri ting, on account of, inter alia , failure to pay license pay, annual renewal fee, or any other charges; contravention of any provision of the Ordinance or its Rules or Regulations; and failure to comply with any condition of a license. He acknowledged that under Section 13 PEMRA may delegate any of its power or responsibilities or functions under the PEMRA Ordinance, 2002 to the Chairman or a Member or any Member of its staff, or an expert, consultant, adviser, or other officer or employee of PEMRA but argued that such delegation of powers shall not include the power to 12 W.P. No. 1252 of 2022
grant, revoke or cancel a broadcast media or distribution license except Cable TV. He submitted that the said provision has been substituted by the PEMRA Amendment Act, 2023 whereby the powe r of PEMRA to suspend a broadcast media license can be delegated to the Chairman and two Members of PEMRA. Th us th e learned counsel for the Petitioners/Appellants vehemently argued that the Impugned Demand Notices under threats of cancellation, suspension of license could not have been issued by the Deputy Director with the approval of only the Chairman at the time of issuance and even today the approval of the Chairman alone is not sufficient. 24. Be that as it may, the Impugned Demand Notices do not th reaten cancellation or suspension of the Petitioners/Appellants licenses. The Impugned Demand Notices direct the Petitioners/Appellants to deposit the alleged outstanding dues on account of AGAR while warning that proceedings for suspension/cancellation shall be initiated in case of failure to comply. A notice of demand which only warns of initiation of proceedings for cancellation/suspension in case of non -compliance does not fall within the ambit of Section 30 nor is it regulated by Section 13. Therefore, I do not find the Impugned Demand Notices to be without authority or jurisdiction. Whether the Impugned…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.