IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN Versus PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER AND 5 OTHERS
This petition was filed in person by the petitioner with the following prayers:
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that a fee can only be charged by respondents Nos., l and 2 for rendering services and in case of the VCR and the Dish-Antina since no services were being provided by the Pakistan Television Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the PTV) charging of the fees for the Dish-Antina and the VCR is without lawful authority.
3. That even the fee for a T.V. licence was illegal and unjustified. Elaborating his submission his contention was that a T .V. set is also used as a monitor for a computer, therefore, only those persons who want to view the programmes of the PTV should be charged the fee and a pay card system should be directed to be introduced. It was further contended that the PTV Corporation generates enormous resources by displaying commercials which are adequate to meet the expenses being incurred by the PTV.
4. It was next contended that contract to collect fees for T.V., Dish Antina and VCR was awarded to respondent No.6 Messrs Research and Collection (Pvt.) Ltd. for a sum of Rs.44 crores against an expected income of 900 crores and that it was not-given, in a transparent manner. It was also contended that despite instructions of the Ministry of Interior prohibiting letting out of collection of Government dues to the security agencies, the contract was awarded to respondent No.6.
5. The learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 placed reliance on Muhammad Aslam Saleemi, Advocate v. The Pakistan Television Corporation and another (PLD 1977 Lahore 852) to contend that PTV was not a person within the contemplation of Article 199(5) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and, therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable. About the Dish-Antina and VCR licence fees, he placed on record fax message dated 24-1-2001 from the PTV according to which the fee on Dish-Antina and VCR has been proposed to be abolished and the matter was under consideration for the issuance of SROs and that license fees on Dish-Antina and VCR are not being recovered from the public since the year 1999-2000. He, however, contended that under the Telegraph Act, 1885 and Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 read with Television Receiving Apparatus (Possession and Licencing) Rules, 1970, even the fee on VCR and Dish-Antina was legally justified. About fee for possessing a T.V. he relied on the Rule -3(3) of the aforesaid Rules. Reliance was also placed on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. No.36-K of 1987, decided on 30-9-1991 (Messrs Hotel Plaza International v. Pakistan Television Corporation) according to which fee was leviable on possession of a T.V. set even if it was not in use. Regarding introduction of the pay card system his contention' was that shifting over to the proposed system will require altogether a new apparatus and system rendering the T.V. sets in use incapable of receiving the transmission. Further, it was a matter of policy which is beyond the - reach of this Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. Regarding contract in question his contention was that it was let out in open auction in a fair and transparent manner in any case it was for the year 1998-99 and the contract period was already over.
6. Controverting the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the PTV is the wholly Government-owned company and was, therefore, a person within the contemplation of Article 199 of the Constitution. He attacked the T.V. Receiving Apparatus (Possession and Licensing) Rules, 1970 on the ground that these violated the principle of due process of law and the equality clause of the Constitution and were, therefore, ultra vires of Articles 2A, 4, 24 and 25 of the Constitution. Regarding contract in question, the period of which has already expired, his contention was that future contracts are also being let out in the same manner.
7. Before proceeding to examine the contentions of. The learned counsel for the parties it may also be noted that a rival contender, namely Mir Afzal Brothers had also assailed the contract in question in W.P. 17466 of 1998 awarded to respondent No.6 which was, however, withdrawn on 24-1-2000. Another Writ Petition bearing No. 15321 of 1998 was filed by one Hizbullah Khan who claimed that he was prepared to take the contract for 64 crores of rupees: This writ petition was also withdrawn on 24-1-2000.
8. As far as fees for VCR and Dish-Antina are concerned, its recovery has been discontinued since 1999. The first grievance of the petitioner stands removed. As far as fee for possessing a T.V. set is concerned, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hotel Plaza International (supra) fully support the contention of the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. According to the said judgment, fee was' leviable on possession simpliciter even if a T.V. set was not in actual use. The contention of the learned counsel that a T.V. set could be used as a monitor for a computer and therefore, only those who wanted to use a T.V. set for viewing the programmes of the PTV are liable to pay the fee has no merit. No law compels a person to possess a T.V. and if it is intended to be used as computer monitor, then one can conveniently go for monitor instead of a T.V. Therefore, the contention that a pay card system should be introduced by the PTV has no merit either. No direction can be issued to the PTV for installing a particular system, as it is a matter of policy beyond, the reach of this Court.
9. As far as the contract in question is concerned, the period thereof has already expired. Resolution of the question that it was let out for inadequate consideration involves a detail inquiry which is beyond the scope of Constitutional jurisdiction.
10. As far as the contention that the contract was let out contrary to the instructions of Ministry of the Interior it has no merit either because respondent No.6 is not a security agency and as explained by the learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2, it was a consortiums of which Messrs Habib Bank Limited and SMS Couriers were the members.
11. For what has been stated above, this writ petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
H.B.T./1-43/L Petition dismissed.