Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SAMI CABLE NETWORK (PVT.) LTD. VS Respondent: PAKISTAN ELECTRONIC MEDIA REGULATORY AUTHORITY ("PEMRA") Honorable Justice Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi Usman Nasir Awan , Ms. Babra Akram Jadoon
CITATION: 2026 CLC 1281 CASE: 2026L251 TITLE: SAMI CABLE NETWORK (PVT.) LTD. VS PAKISTAN ELECTRONIC MEDIA REGULATORY AUTHORITY ("PEMRA") Honorable Justice Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi Usman Nasir Awan , Ms. Babra Akram Jadoon COURT: LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE YEAR: 2026 JOURNAL: CLC ============================================================
2026 CLC July 2026 C L C 1281 [Lahore] Before Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi, J Messrs SAMI CABLE NETWORK (PVT.) LTD. through Authorized Officer ---Appellant Versus PAKISTAN ELECTRONIC MEDIA REGULATORY AUTHORITY ("PEMRA") through Chairman and 2 others ---Respondents F.A.O. No. 54373 of 2022, heard on 17th June, 2026. (a) Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XIII of 2002)--- ----S.30-A---Cable TV operating company---Regulatory charges, dispute as to---Subscriber fee, assessment of---Assessment on actual subscriber strength, requirement of---PEMRA's decision to reassess fee already assessed earlier, challenge to---PEMRA assessing subscriber fee on presumed subscriber count based on maximum permissible capacity---Legality---In essence, the appellant company challenged the demand of Rs. 69,26,820/- towards alleged outstanding subscriber fee and in-house CD channel charges, as well as refusal to renew its cable television licence until payment was made---It was the appellant's case that the demand was based on arbitrary assumptions rather than the actual subscriber base reflected in its audited accounts and subscriber data---Pivotal question requiring determination before the High Court was "whether the respondent authority could lawfully assess and recover subscriber fee on the basis of presumed subscriber strength instead of the operator's actual, verifiable subscriber data?"---Held: A significant aspect of the matter was PEMRA's own earlier exercise whereby, upon requiring audited accounts and subscriber data, it proceeded to determine subscriber strength and revise the fee position---Any departure from such earlier position had to be supported by express reasons based on record, which were conspicuously absent from the impugned order---Record indicated that revalidation of licence proceedings had been initiated after PEMRA's earlier determination---Legal effect of such revalidation process and its bearing on subsequent reassessment of liability was a central issue requiring determination---Impugned order neither examined this sequence nor explained how a concluded regulatory exercise could be revisited without addressing its legal consequences---Impugned order further proceeded on the assumption that subscriber liability could be assessed on the basis of maximum permissible capacity attached to the licence category, however, no legal provision was identified to justify such methodology, nor was it reconciled with the appellant's consistent stance that subscriber fee was chargeable on actual subscriber strength already verified through audited accounts---Impugned order was deficient in several aspects and suffered from non-application of mind, failure to consider relevant material, absence of reasons and improper exercise of jurisdiction---Nevertheless, since the matter involved disputed questions of fact regarding subscriber strength, effect of earlier PEMRA proceedings, payments and computation of liability, it required reconsideration by the competent authority---Impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to PEMRA for fresh decision---Present appeal was allowed, in circumstances. Ghulam Abbas v. Telephone Industries of Pakistan and 2 others PLJ 2026 SC 304; LPG Association of Pakistan through Chairman v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Islamabad and 8 others 2009 CLD 1498 and Messrs United Woollen Mills Ltd'. Workers' Union v. Messrs United Woollen Mills Ltd, 2010 SCMR 1475 rel. (b) Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XIII of 2002)--- ----S.30-A---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.24-A---Cable TV operating company---Annual subscriber fee, assessment of---PEMRA having already determined the fee through a concluded regulatory exercise, departure from---Reassessment of fee after considerable period---Requirement of clear and objective reasons---Where a regulator adopts a structured mechanism for determination of a disputed factual liability, principles of fairness, consistency and administrative propriety require that such determination, once acted upon, cannot be lightly disregarded without clear and objective reasons---Any departure from such earlier position must be supported by express reasons based on record. Messrs United Woollen Mills Ltd'. Workers' Union v. Messrs United Woollen Mills Ltd, 2010 SCMR 1475 rel. (c) Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XIII of 2002)--- ----S.30-A---Regulatory liabilities---Distinct regulatory heads---Licence fee, renewal fee, subscriber fee and in-house CD channel charges---Independent determination and reasoned analysis by PEMRA, requirement of---Composite determination not sustainable---Where PEMRA charged distinct regulatory liabilities, namely licence fee, renewal fee, subscriber fee and in-house CD channel charges, each constituting a separate head governed by distinct factual and legal considerations, such exercise required independent determination---Any order passed by PEMRA with respect to such charges must disclose structured analysis separating these heads and the evidentiary basis for each. (d) General Clauses Act (X of 1897)--- ----S.24-A---Speaking order, passing of---Mandatory requirement---A speaking order was not a formality, but a legal requirement ensuring application of mind, transparency, fairness and judicial reviewability---Where material evidence was ignored and substantial objections remained unanswered, order could not be sustained. (e) Jurisdiction--- ----Territorial jurisdiction of High Court---Cable operator company operating within Tehsil Shakargarh, District Narowal---Effect---Substantial part of cause of action arose within territorial limits of High Court (Lahore)---Consequences of any order passed by PEMRA were also to be suffered within jurisdiction of High Court (Lahore). (f) Administration of justice--- ----Speaking order, passing of---Mandatory requirement---Essence---Reasons constitute the heartbeat of every quasi-judicial determination. (g) Estoppel--- ----Regulatory proceedings---Participation in regulatory proceedings---Effect---Participation in regulatory proceedings did not operate as estoppel against challenge to an order alleged to be contrary to law. Usman Nasir Awan for Appellant. Ms. Babra Akram Jadoon, Assistant Attorney General along with Sh. Shehzad Ahmad, Director (Legal), PEMRA, Syed Shahab Qutub and Areeba Hassan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 17th June, 2026. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J.--- This First Appeal against Order under Section 30A of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 ("the PEMRA Ordinance") has been preferred by Messrs Sami Cable Network (Pvt.) Ltd. against the order dated 29.06.2022 passed by the respondent-PEMRA, whereby the Authority maintained a demand of Rs.69,26,820/- on account of alleged outstanding subscriber fee and In-House CD Channel charges and further directed that the appellant's Cable Television licence be processed for re-validation/renewal only after clearance of the said amount. 2. The record shows that the appellant was granted a Cable Television Network licence on 17.05.2012 for Tehsil Shakargarh, District Narowal. The appellant maintains that pursuant to directions issued by PEMRA, it furnished audited accounts and subscriber data for determination of actual subscriber strength, whereafter the Authority revisited the subscriber fee position through notice dated 05.04.2016 and accepted the amounts so determined. However, through notice dated 31.03.2021, PEMRA raised a fresh demand of Rs.69,26,820/-, which was maintained through the impugned order. Hence, instant appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned order is arbitrary, non-speaking and contrary to record. It is argued that subscriber liability has been computed on the basis of maximum permissible capacity rather than actual subscriber strength, despite PEMRA having earlier undertaken a verification exercise on the basis of audited accounts. It is further contended that the Authority has failed to consider its own earlier proceedings, including notice dated 05.04.2016, re-validation process, audited accounts, LMS ledgers and payments allegedly accepted, and has departed from its earlier position without assigning any cogent reason, thereby violating settled principles of administrative fairness and consistency. In support, he has relied upon The Taxation Officer / Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Lahore v. Messrs Rupafil Ltd. and others (2018 SCMR 1131), Khalid Mahmood and 3 others v. Umara Khan deceased through Legal Heirs and others (2021 YLR 391) and
Lahore Development Authority and another v. D.G. Khan Cement Company Limited and 2 others (2023 MLD 11) . 4. Learned Legal Advisor for respondent-PEMRA, assisted by learned Law Officer, supports the impugned order and submits that the appellant cannot dispute categorization of its licence after having paid fee corresponding thereto. It is further contended that the appellant failed to establish actual subscriber strength through reliable material. Preliminary objections regarding maintainability, territorial jurisdiction and estoppel have also been raised. 5. The objection regarding territorial jurisdiction is without substance. The appellant operates within Tehsil Shakargarh, District Narowal, and the consequences of the impugned order are to be suffered within this jurisdiction. A substantial part of the cause of action thus arises within the territorial limits of this Court. Likewise, participation in regulatory proceedings does not operate as estoppel against challenge to an order alleged to be contrary to law. The preliminary objections are overruled. Reliance is placed upon Ghulam Abbas v. Telephone Industries of Pakistan and 2 others (PLJ 2026 SC 304) and LPG Association of Pakistan through Chairman v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary. Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Islamabad and 8 others (2009 CLD 1498) . 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record, the core issue is whether the impugned order reflects lawful exercise of quasi-judicial jurisdiction and proper application of mind to the material placed before PEMRA. 7. The appellant's defence was based on audited accounts, subscriber data furnished pursuant to PEMRA's directions, notice dated 05.04.2016, LMS ledgers, departmental record and payments allegedly accepted by the Authority. These constituted the foundation of the appellant's case; however, the impugned order does not meaningfully engage with this material nor assigns reasons for rejecting or departing from it. 8. A significant aspect of the matter is PEMRA's own earlier exercise whereby, upon requiring audited accounts and subscriber data, it proceeded to determine subscriber strength and revise the fee position through notice dated 05.04.2016. Where a regulator adopts a structured mechanism for determination of disputed factual liability, principles of fairness, consistency and administrative propriety require that such determination, once acted upon, cannot be lightly disregarded without clear and objective reasons. Any departure from such earlier position must be supported by express reasoning based on record, which is conspicuously absent in the impugned order. Reference is made to Messrs United Woollen Mills Ltd. Workers' Union v. Messrs United Woollen Mills Ltd, (2010 SCMR 1475) . 9. The appellant's reliance upon LMS ledgers and departmental record also raised a material factual question as to whether the alleged outstanding liability had already been adjusted or differently reflected in PEMRA's own system. Such official record, being intrinsically relevant to computation of liability, required express consideration and reconciliation. The impugned order, however, remains silent on this aspect. 10. In addition, the record indicates that re-validation proceedings were initiated after PEMRA's earlier determination. The legal effect of such re-validation process and its bearing on subsequent reassessment of liability was a central issue requiring determination. The impugned order neither examines this sequence nor explains how a concluded regulatory exercise could be revisited without addressing its legal consequences. 11. The impugned order further proceeds on the assumption that subscriber liability may be assessed on the basis of maximum permissible capacity attached to the licence category. However, no legal provision or regulatory justification has been identified to support such methodology, nor has it been reconciled with the appellant's consistent stance that subscriber fee is chargeable on actual subscriber strength already verified through audited accounts. 12. It is also evident that the Authority has conflated distinct regulatory liabilities, namely licence fee, renewal fee, subscriber fee and In-House CD Channel charges. Each constitutes a separate head governed by distinct factual and legal considerations, requiring independent determination. The impugned order does not disclose any structured analysis separating these heads or the evidentiary basis for each. 13. The settled principle that reasons constitute the heartbeat of every quasi-judicial determination is well established. A speaking order is not a formality; it is a legal requirement ensuring application of mind, transparency, fairness and judicial reviewability. Where material evidence is ignored and substantial objections remain unanswered, the order cannot be sustained. 14. The cumulative effect of these deficiencies is that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind, failure to consider relevant material, absence of reasoning and improper exercise of jurisdiction. Nevertheless, since the matter involves disputed questions of fact regarding subscriber strength, effect of earlier PEMRA proceedings, payments and computation of liability, it requires reconsideration by the competent authority. 15. Consequently, this appeal is allowed . The impugned order dated 29.06.2022 is set aside and the matter is remanded
to PEMRA for fresh decision. While doing so, the Authority shall specifically determine: (i) the legal effect of the notice dated 05.04.2016 and earlier determination of subscriber strength; (ii) the re-validation process and its implications; (iii) audited accounts, subscriber data, LMS ledgers and departmental record; (iv)
methodology for determination of subscriber strength; (v) payments made and their legal effect; and (vi) separate assessment of each head of liability. PEMRA shall afford proper hearing and pass a reasoned speaking order strictly in accordance with law within a period of sixty (60) days . 16. It is clarified that no observation herein shall prejudice the merits of the case before PEMRA, which shall decide the matter independently in accordance with law. UN/S-10/L Appeal allowed.