In the supreme court of pakIstan  
( Appellate Jurisdiction ) 
 
 
BENCH 
Mr. Justice Amir Hani Muslim 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam  
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO.173 OF 2017 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 27.01.2017 
Passed by the High Court of Sindh Karachi, in  
CMA No.721/2017 in Misc. Appeal No.58/2015) 
 
Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory  
… 
… 
Petitioner 
Authority  
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
Labbaik (Pvt) Ltd and another 
 
… 
… 
Respondents  
 
 
For Petitioner  
: 
Mr. Zahid F. Ebrahim, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Kashif Hanif, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Tariq Aziz, AOR 
For Respondents  
: 
Not represented.   
Date of hearing  
: 
31-01-2017 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
Through these proceedings, the Petitioner has impugned the 
interim order passed by the learned High Court of Sindh in Miscellaneous 
Appeal No.58 of 2015; whereby it has suspended the operation of the 
prohibition order dated 26.01.2017, passed by the Chairman of the 
Petitioner, till the next date and also sought comments from the alleged 
contemnor, the Chairman, Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority 
(hereinafter referred to as the Authority). 
2. 
 
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the 
Respondent No.1 has filed a Miscellaneous Appeal No.58 of 2015 under 
Section 30-A of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority 
Ordinance, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance), challenging the 
order dated 16.9.2015; whereby the Petitioner has suspended the licences of 
CP.173/2017 
2 
Satellite TV Channels “BOL NEWS” and “BOL Entertainment”. The 
prayer in the said Miscellaneous Appeal is reproduced hereunder:- 
“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court 
may be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 
16.09.2015 (23-9-18), passed by the Authority and allow 
Appeal of the Appellants. 
Further, grant cost of the proceedings and grant any other 
relief which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper 
under the circumstances of the case.” 
 
3. 
 
The learned High Court had suspended the order dated 
16.09.2015, of the Petitioner/Authority which was communicated through 
press release on 23.09.2015, by its interim order dated 28.09.2016, with the 
observation that the Petitioner or any person acting on behalf of the 
Petitioner shall not take any coercive action against the Respondent No.1, 
by any means and further ordered the Petitioner to act strictly in accordance 
with law. The learned Counsel contends that the order dated 16.09.2015 
was withdrawn by the Petitioner/Authority on 19.10.2016 and the learned 
High Court was informed accordingly. Even on 08.11.2016, the Petitioner 
filed application in the Court to confirm the fact that order challenged in 
appeal has been withdrawn by the Petitioner. The learned Counsel submits 
that after withdrawal of the order dated 16.09.2016, passed by the 
Petitioner, the learned High Court was bound to dismiss the Appeal as 
having become infructuous, instead the learned High Court did not dispose 
of the Appeal.  
4. 
 
On 23.12.2016, the Petitioner/Authority has issued a show 
cause notice to the Respondent No.1 for revocation of the licence of 
Respondent No.1’s channel after the security clearance of its Directors was 
rejected by the Ministry of Interior. This show cause notice was not 
challenged by any independent proceedings instead a C.M.A was filed 
challenging the order in the Miscellaneous Appeal No.58 of 2015. 
CP.173/2017 
3 
Alongwith the C.M Application, a contempt application was also filed 
against the Petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that the show cause notice 
issued to the Respondent No.1 amounts to defiance of the order of the 
Court passed on 28.09.2016. The learned High Court while issuing notice 
on both the Applications, suspended the show cause notice, vide order 
dated 02.01.2017, staying the action of the Petitioner/Authority pursuant to 
the show cause notice dated 23.12.2016.  
5. 
 
The Petitioner further claims that the show cause notice dated 
23.12.2016 was issued on an independent cause of action and it has no 
nexus or bearing with the order passed by the Petitioner on 16.09.2016 in 
the Miscellaneous Appeal No.58 of 2015 and become infructuous on 
16.09.2016. The Counsel contends that the show cause notice issued by the 
Petitioner could only be challenged by a separate appeal and not in 
Miscellaneous Appeal No.58 of 2015.  
6. 
 
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner next contended that on 
16.01.2017, the Authority on different complaints being received by it,  
took notice on 26.01.2017, by issuing a prohibition order, in terms of 
Section 27 of the Ordinance, whereby it restrained the programme “Aisay 
Nahi Chalay Ga” telecast by Dr Aamir Liaquat Hussain. Inspite of the 
prohibition order passed by the Petitioner/Authority, on the same evening 
the said Doctor Aamir Liaquat continued the programme and on the 
following day, the Respondent No.1 made Application C.M.A.No.721 of 
2017, challenging the prohibition order and also filed another contempt 
application, which order was passed on a separate cause, by the competent 
authority of the PEMRA.  
CP.173/2017 
4 
7. 
 
The learned High Court has entertained the Miscellaneous 
Applications of the Respondent No.1 in the same Appeal which became 
infructuous overlooking the scope of the Appeal, granted interim relief 
while issuing notice to the Petitioner even on contempt Application.  
8. 
 
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that in 
the first place, the learned High Court has become functus officio, as the 
order appealed against was withdrawn on 19.10.2016, which fact was 
brought to the notice of the learned High Court not only on 19.10.2016 but 
also on 08.11.2016 by an Application. The learned Counsel next contended 
that through these orders, which were passed subsequent to the order dated 
19.10.2016, the learned High Court has enlarged the scope of the Appeal, 
by entertaining the Miscellaneous Application of the Respondent No.1, 
through which it has challenged the orders passed by the Authority at times 
on independent causes. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has 
contended that passing of interim orders at times has led the Authority to 
stand still. The interim orders passed by the learned High Court without 
examining the merits and material had made the Petitioner dysfunctional.  
9. 
 
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that all the 
orders passed in these proceedings by the competent authority of the 
Authority/PEMRA were in conformity with the Ordinance and issuance of 
the notices on contempt applications were without jurisdiction.  
10. 
 
We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and 
have perused the record. The Appeal is fixed for hearing before the learned 
High Court tomorrow, therefore, we are not inclined to pass any further 
order and will wait for the orders which are yet to be passed by the High 
Court in these proceedings. However, we issue notice to the Respondents 
CP.173/2017 
5 
for a date in the next week and in the intervening period, restrained the 
High Court from proceeding against the Chairman, PEMRA, or any other 
person on the contempt applications filed by the Respondent No.1 at times 
under the garb of orders passed by them against the Respondent No.1. The 
Registrar of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, shall immediately place this 
Order before the Bench hearing Miscellaneous Appeal No.58 of 2015.   
 
 
To come up on 06.02.2017.   
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
31-01-2017 
Sohail/* 
Judge 
