PEMRA
کو کیبل صارفین کی اصل تعداد کے مطابق فیس مقرر کرنا ہوگی
کیبل نیٹ ورک سے متعلق ایک اہم مقدمے میں لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے اس اصول کو واضح کیا کہ کسی کیبل آپریٹر سے سبسکرائبر فیس یا دیگر واجبات کی وصولی کے لیے محض فرضی یا غیر تصدیق شدہ صارفین کی تعداد کو بنیاد نہیں بنایا جا سکتا۔
مقدمے میں
PEMRA
کی جانب سے سامی کیبل نیٹ ورک سے تقریباً 69 لاکھ روپے سبسکرائبر فیس اور دیگر چارجز کا مطالبہ کیا گیا تھا۔ کیبل کمپنی نے مؤقف اختیار کیا کہ اس سے فیس اصل صارفین کی تعداد کے بجائے ایسی تعداد کی بنیاد پر طلب کی گئی جو حقیقی اور قابلِ تصدیق صارفین کی تعداد کی نمائندگی نہیں کرتی۔
لاہور ہائی کورٹ کا اہم اصول
لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ
PEMRA
کو سبسکرائبر فیس مقرر کرتے وقت کیبل نیٹ ورک کے اصل اور قابلِ تصدیق صارفین کی تعداد کو مدنظر رکھنا ضروری ہے۔
عدالت نے اس بات کو بھی اہم قرار دیا کہ اگر پہلے سے فیس کسی بنیاد پر طے کی جا چکی ہو تو بعد میں اس میں تبدیلی یا اضافی مطالبے کے لیے بھی متعلقہ حقائق اور قابلِ اعتماد ریکارڈ کو سامنے رکھنا چاہیے۔
فرضی صارفین کی تعداد پر فیس نہیں
اس فیصلے کا بنیادی نکتہ یہ ہے کہ ریگولیٹری اتھارٹی کسی کاروباری ادارے پر ایسے مالی واجبات عائد نہیں کر سکتی جن کی بنیاد حقیقی اور قابلِ تصدیق اعداد و شمار کے بجائے محض اندازے یا فرضی صارفین کی تعداد ہو۔
کیبل آپریٹر سے وصول کی جانے والی فیس کا تعین کرتے وقت اصل صورتحال، دستیاب ریکارڈ اور حقیقی صارفین کی تعداد کو سامنے رکھنا ضروری ہے۔
کیبل آپریٹرز کے لیے اہمیت
یہ فیصلہ کیبل نیٹ ورک چلانے والے اداروں کے لیے اس لحاظ سے اہم ہے کہ اگر کسی اتھارٹی کی جانب سے سبسکرائبر فیس یا دیگر چارجز غیر حقیقی تعداد کی بنیاد پر عائد کیے جائیں تو متعلقہ ادارہ اس مطالبے کو قانونی طور پر چیلنج کر سکتا ہے۔
تاہم ہر معاملے میں حتمی فیصلہ متعلقہ ریکارڈ، لائسنس کی شرائط اور کیس کے مخصوص حقائق کی بنیاد پر ہوگا۔
خلاصہ
لاہور ہائی کورٹ کے اس فیصلے سے یہ اصول سامنے آتا ہے کہ سبسکرائبر فیس کے تعین کے لیے اصل، درست اور قابلِ تصدیق صارفین کی تعداد کو بنیاد بنایا جانا چاہیے، نہ کہ فرضی یا غیر ثابت شدہ اعداد و شمار کو۔
یہ اصول ریگولیٹری اداروں کو بھی اس بات کا پابند کرتا ہے کہ مالی واجبات عائد کرتے وقت متعلقہ حقائق اور قابلِ اعتماد ریکارڈ کو مناسب طور پر مدنظر رکھا جائے۔
Must read Respondent
2026 CLC 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 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 presun 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 PEMRA for fresh decision---Present appeal was allowed, in circumstances. jurisdiction--Neverthe
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 Messrs United Woollen 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 upontannot be the disregarded w without clear and objective reasons-Any departure from 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---L -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. 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 sed 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, ered, 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 Respondent