TRADE SERVE INTERNATIONAL (PRIVATE) LIMITED versus PAKISTAN ELECTRONIC MEDIA REGULATORY AUTHORITY
- S, 14 - Constitution of Pakistan, Arts 73 and 19 - Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Radio Broadcast Station Operations) Regulations, Regulations 7 and 9 - Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Rules, 2009, R9 - The mini-bill procedure procedure Nature - Elect Pemra Fund Pakistan Pakistan License grant from Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, (PEMRA) ا Ability to operate radio broadcasts - License fee fee License fee submitted to PEMRA Fund under the terms of renewal of such license fee Nature of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 Scope of application In reference to the termination of section 14 of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, the implementation and renewal of the license fee imp, petitioners for the Radio Broadcasting License stated that the renewal fee of 11 pm. a was a tax fee and not a fee, because there was no pro for the said fee, and that was not a money bill in the meaning of Article (a ()) (a) of the Constitution - Money Bill - Constitution. In Article er73 ()) (A), it was clear that the \\\ license fee \\\ or \\\ fee \ it was not a tax \\ and that the license fee was different from any fee or charge for different services. And it is not necessary Each license must be quid pro quo or the license fee or renewal fee must be passed through a mini bill through Article (73 (a) (a) \\\ licensing fee and \\\ provided) The difference between the fees for the services differs, which means that the license fee does not require QuotePro. But there must be a correlation between the fees charged by the relevant law and the cost of administration - the license fee remains
e Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Radio Broadcast Station Operations) Regulations, 2012 and Regin.9 of the same, provided that renewal fee shall be the applicable licence fee plus the rate of inflation calculated by the State Bank of Pakistan—lit such cases where the licence fee was regulatory, where no service or privilege was granted by the government authority and where the only purpose of the licence was regulatory for enforcement of statutory requirements, then such a fee could not be excessive, [pp. 580, 582] C&D
Pakcom Limited and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2011 SC 44 ref.
For Petitioners
Raza Kazim, Muhammad Nawaz Bajwa and Usman Raza Jamil and Ms. Fatima Malik (in W.P.No.2446 of 2013).
Jam Asif Mehmood, M. Saim Hashmi, Behzad Haider, Wasif Riaz, Salman Faisal and Ms. Farah Salman (In W.Ps. Nos. 4366, 4367, 4368, 4369, 4370 and 4371 of 2013).
Ali Sibtain Fazli and Hasham Ahmad (in W.Ps.Nos. 12908 and 12909 of 2013).
Raheel Kamran Sheikh, Abuzar Salman Khan and Shahzad Burki (in W.P.No.29949 of 2014).
For Respondents
Muhammad Zikria Sheikh, DAG.
Salman Akram Raja, Muhammad Azam Zia, Tariq Bashir, Bilal Bashir, Yasir Islam Chaudhary and Ms. Unsa Manzoor for Respondent PEMRA along with Tahir Farooq Tarar, Head Legal PEMRA, Punjab.
_Date of hearing: 9th February, 2017._
property advocates from Ugoki lawyer
