Summary: (a) Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996 (XVII of 1996)----S. 31(6)---Illegal termination of international traffic---Scope of liability---Corporate employees' criminal liability under telecommunication laws---Prosecution alleged that respondents, employed as Chief Technical Officer and Manager Networking Operations of Wise Communication (Pvt.) Ltd., were involved in illegal termination of international traffic, bypassing legal gateway exchanges, causing financial loss to the public exchequer---Held, that while the company was licensed by Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA), the respondents were mere employees and did not hold a position making them personally liable under S. 31(6) of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996---Prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents had committed an offense under the said law---Acquittal upheld.(b) Criminal Procedure---Burden of Proof---Scope----Standard of proof in cases involving corporate criminal liability---Scope---Prosecution must prove not only the occurrence of an offense but also the direct involvement of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt---In the present case, respondents were employees of a licensed telecommunication company and not decision-makers responsible for illegal operations---High Court rightly concluded that no evidence established their direct involvement, leading to acquittal.Cited Principle:Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt for criminal liability to be imposed on corporate employees.(c) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973----Art. 185(3)---Scope of Supreme Court’s review of acquittal orders---Principle---Acquittal orders by lower courts are not lightly interfered with unless there is a clear miscarriage of justice or misreading of evidence---Supreme Court found no legal justification to overturn the High Court’s finding that prosecution had failed to prove the case against the respondents---Leave to appeal refused.Disposition: Criminal petition dismissed. Acquittal upheld. Leave to appeal refused.

Summary: (a) Telecommunications Law – Universal Service Fund (USF) Contribution – Enforcement by PTA –– ---- Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996 – Sections 7, 23, 33A – Held, a telecommunication licensee is obligated to pay USF contributions as per its licence and the Universal Service Fund Rules, 2006 – PTA has the authority to enforce such payments and issue enforcement orders – The failure of a licensee to contribute to USF constitutes a contravention of its licence terms, justifying regulatory action under Section 23 of the 1996 Act – Reliance placed on Rule 5(3) of the USF Rules, 2006, which vests PTA with enforcement powers. (b) Delegation of Powers – Validity of Proceedings Conducted by PTA –– ---- Delegation of Authority – Administrative Law – Appellant argued that the Director (Law), PTA issued the show cause notice, and therefore, only he could conduct proceedings – Held, delegation of power to an officer does not divest PTA of its own authority – PTA retains the right to conduct proceedings and take enforcement action even where an officer has exercised delegated authority – Reliance placed on Haji Muhammad Ismail vs. Government of the Punjab (1987 MLD 2457). (c) Payment Disputes – Claim Against USF Company Does Not Justify Non-Payment –– ---- Licensee's Claim Against USF Company – Effect on Regulatory Obligation – The appellant argued that it had withheld USF contributions due to a pending civil claim of Rs.666.5 million against the USF Company – Held, an independent claim against the USF Company does not absolve a licensee from its statutory and contractual obligations to contribute to USF – The mere filing of a suit does not grant the appellant a right to withhold contributions owed to USF – The appellant could seek recovery through civil proceedings but could not delay its obligations under the licence. (d) Imposition of Late Payment Additional Fee (LPAF) on USF Contribution –– ---- Interpretation of Licence Terms – Whether LPAF is Justified on Delayed USF Contributions – Held, the appellant’s licence clearly states that USF contributions form part of its “annual fees” – Clause 4.4.2 of the licence provides that late payment of “all fees including initial licence fee” incurs an additional fee at 2% per month – Since USF contributions were categorized as “annual fees” under Clause 4.1.2 of the licence, LPAF was lawfully imposed – The Court distinguished this case from National Telecommunication Corporation vs. PTA (FAO No.164/2017), where LPAF was held inapplicable to contributions made to the Research & Development Fund. (e) Continuation of Regulatory Proceedings After Partial Payment – Need for Fresh Show Cause Notice –– ---- Partial Compliance with Regulatory Orders – Legal Consequences – The appellant contended that after making a partial payment of Rs.279 million, PTA should have issued a fresh show cause notice for the remaining amount – Held, regulatory proceedings do not require a fresh notice where the original enforcement action remains valid – A partial payment does not extinguish the original liability or restart the enforcement process – PTA was justified in continuing enforcement without issuing a new notice. (f) Jurisdiction of the High Court – Appeal Under Section 7 of the 1996 Act –– ---- Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996 – Section 7 – Appeal against PTA’s decision lies to the High Court only where the order is issued by PTA itself and not by an officer acting under delegated authority – Held, since the impugned order was passed by PTA (and not an officer acting under delegated powers), the High Court had jurisdiction under Section 7(1) of the Act – Appellant’s argument regarding improper delegation was misconceived. (g) Disposition – Appeal Dismissed – PTA Entitled to Withdraw Deposited Amount –– ---- Appeal dismissed – PTA’s enforcement order upheld – PTA entitled to withdraw Rs.387,462,464/- deposited in court by the appellant pursuant to interim relief – No order as to costs. Disposition: ---- Appeal dismissed – PTA’s order upheld – PTA permitted to withdraw deposited amount – Imposition of LPAF on delayed USF contributions held to be lawful.

Summary: FAO, PTA, Challenging the impugned decision PTA dated 15.05.2018. (a) Telecommunication Law – Regulation of International Bandwidth Capacity –– ---- Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996 – Sections 20(1), 25(3) – Pakistan Telecommunication Rules, 2000 – Long Distance International License (LDI License) – De-Regulation Policy, 2003 – Held, LDI licensees are permitted to enter into agreements with submarine cable consortia or satellite service providers for acquiring Indefeasible Rights of Use (IRUs) in international submarine cables – Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) erred in declaring the tripartite agreement between PTCL, LDN, and HKT as void under Section 25(3) of the Telecom Act – Provision of broadband capacity via an international submarine cable does not constitute provision of a telecommunication service in Pakistan requiring a PTA license. (b) Jurisdiction of PTA – Licensing of International Operators –– ---- Telecom Act, 1996 – Sections 20, 25(3) – Definition of "Telecommunication Service" under Section 2(v) – Held, PTA does not regulate submarine cable consortia or require them to obtain licenses – PTA's attempt to prohibit an international operator, HKT, from providing broadband capacity through a licensed landing station in Pakistan was without legal basis – The JV Agreement did not breach the licensing requirements, as HKT was not providing telecommunication services directly within Pakistan's territory. (c) Interpretation of Licensing Regulations – Definition of "Operator" –– ---- Telecom Act, 1996 – LDI License – Clause 13.2 – Held, distinction exists between "Operator" (capitalized, meaning PTA-licensed entities) and "operator" (referring to entities not requiring PTA licensing) – LDI License and Clause 2.2.1 of LDI License permit LDI operators to procure bandwidth capacity from international submarine cable operators – PTA misapplied its own regulations by requiring an international operator without physical presence in Pakistan to obtain a license. (d) Regulatory Framework – Competitive Market Principles –– ---- De-Regulation Policy, 2003 – Clauses 4.1.4 & 4.1.5 – Telecom Act, 1996 – Sections 4, 5, 6 – Held, regulatory policy aims to promote competition and consumer benefits – Blocking competitive agreements for broadband capacity acquisition would restrict market access and favor monopolistic entities – PTA’s restrictive interpretation inhibited fair competition and contradicted the policy's objective of affordability and service expansion. (e) Legal Validity of Commercial Agreements – Tripartite Agreement Legitimacy –– ---- Telecom Act, 1996 – Section 25(3) – JV Agreement among PTCL, LDN, and HKT – Held, agreement structured in compliance with regulatory requirements – No violation of licensing terms occurred, as PTA continued to regulate PTCL as a licensed landing station operator and LDN as an LDI licensee – PTA’s decision was declared irrational and set aside. (f) Global Regulatory Practices – Sovereign Right vs. Overregulation –– ---- International Telecommunications Regulation – UN Convention on the Law of the Sea – ITU and WTO Frameworks – Held, different countries adopt varied regulatory models for submarine cable licensing – Pakistan does not require submarine cable consortium members to seek individual PTA licenses – PTA’s attempt to impose additional restrictions was inconsistent with global regulatory practices and would unnecessarily increase operational costs. Disposition: ---- Appeals (FAO No. 51 & 52 of 2018) allowed – PTA’s decision dated 14.05.2018 set aside – JV Agreement between PTCL, LDN, and HKT declared valid and not in violation of the Telecom Act – PTA directed to ensure a competitive and consumer-friendly telecommunication environment.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a telecommunications company, filed a writ petition challenging the refusal of the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) to renew its license on the same terms and conditions as before, including the right to retain an additional 6.6 MHz in the 1800 MHz spectrum. This additional spectrum had been temporarily allocated due to cross-border interference from neighboring country signals affecting the company’s 900 MHz band. The company argued that since the interference persisted, it should be allowed to continue using the additional spectrum even after the expiration of its license. The PTA and the Frequency Allocation Board (FAB) contended that the additional spectrum was meant as temporary compensation and would expire with the license, as decided in a 2016 meeting. Despite being informed of this decision, the company sought to retain the spectrum beyond the expiration of its license in 2019. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner has a legal right to retain the additional spectrum of 6.6 MHz in the 1800 MHz band after the expiration of its license in 2019. ----2- Whether the PTA and FAB are obligated to renew the petitioner’s license on the same terms and conditions, including the additional spectrum. ----3- Whether the petitioner’s challenge to FAB’s 2016 decision regarding the temporary nature of the spectrum allocation was barred due to delay (laches). ----4- Whether the petitioner’s unauthorized use of the additional spectrum beyond the expiry of its license constitutes a violation of the law. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Right to Retain Spectrum: The court held that the petitioner had no legal right to retain the additional spectrum after the expiration of its license. The allocation was temporary and meant to last until the license expired or the interference was resolved. The petitioner was aware of this decision since 2016 but failed to challenge it in a timely manner. --License Renewal Terms: The PTA and FAB were not obligated to renew the petitioner’s license on the same terms, especially with respect to the additional spectrum. The court emphasized that the renewal of licenses is subject to policy and regulatory decisions, and the spectrum is a scarce resource that must be managed in the public interest. --Delay (Laches): The court ruled that the petitioner’s challenge to the 2016 FAB decision was barred by laches. The petitioner had been informed in 2016 that the additional spectrum allocation was temporary, and its failure to challenge this decision until after the license expired was unjustifiable. --Unauthorized Spectrum Use: The court upheld the PTA’s enforcement order, declaring that the petitioner’s use of the additional spectrum after the license expired was unauthorized and illegal. The petitioner was ordered to vacate the additional spectrum and make payments for its unauthorized use. The petitions and the appeal were dismissed with costs. -----Citations/Precedents: Mehmood Hussain Lark v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. (2010 SCMR 1036) Haji Muhammad Boota v. Member (Revenue) BOR (2010 SCMR 1049) Arif Shah v. Abdul Hakeem Qureshi (PLD 1991 SC 905) Pakistan Vs. Salahuddin (PLD 1991 SC 546) Al-Jehad Trust Vs. Federation of Pakistan (1999 SCMR 1379) Fecto Belarus Traders Limited Vs. Pakistan (2001 PTD 1829) Rehmatullah Khan Vs. Government of Pakistan (2003 SCMR 50) Member (S&R)/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore Vs. Ashfaque Ali (PLD 2003 SC 132) Messrs M.K.B. Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Chairman, Area Electricity Board, WAPDA (2005 SCMR 699) Federation of Pakistan Vs. Haji Muhammad Sadiq (PLD 2007 SC 133) Pakcom Vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2011 SC 44) Dassani Travels (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Messrs Travels Shop (Pvt.) Ltd. (PLD 2014 SC 1) DV Com Data Vs. Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PLD 2017 Islamabad 177) Ministry of Information Technology and Telecommunications, Islamabad Vs. C.M. Pak (Pvt.) Ltd. (PLD 2020 SC 551) Petroleum Exploration (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Federal Government of Pakistan (PLD 2020 Islamabad 214) Dawakhana Hakim Ajmal Khan (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2020 Lahore 899) Ghulam Sarwar Vs. Federation of Pakistan (2020 PLC (C.S.) 1211)

Summary: Background: The appellant, CM Pak Limited, challenged an order from the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) that required it to update its billing system and comply with various directives. PTA conducted a billing verification survey in 2020, revealing that the appellant allegedly charged customers more than advertised rates and applied incorrect tax rates. PTA issued a show-cause notice, held hearings, and later gathered additional material during a site visit to the appellant’s office. The appellant argued that the material collected during this visit, which contributed to the adverse decision, was not shared with it, violating principles of natural justice. -----Issues: 1- Whether PTA violated principles of due process by failing to share material collected from the appellant’s site visit. -----2- Whether the lack of access to this material affected the appellant’s right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that PTA’s failure to provide the appellant with the information gathered during the site visit was a violation of the right to due process and fair trial as per Article 10-A. Since the proceedings under Section 23 of the Pakistan Telecommunication Act could have penal consequences, all incriminating evidence had to be disclosed to the appellant. The order was set aside, and PTA was directed to restart the proceedings, ensuring the appellant receives all relevant material for a fair response. -----Citations/Precedents: Article 10-A of the Constitution: Emphasizes the right to due process and fair trial. Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996: Governs PTA’s authority and obligations under Section 23 for enforcing compliance in telecom operations.

Summary: Background: The appellant, Telenor Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited, challenged the order dated 06.12.2021, issued by the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA), which imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000,000/- on the appellant. The fine was levied for failing to provide uninterrupted telecommunication services in Azad Jammu & Kashmir (AJ&K), due to the actions of the Commissioner Inland Revenue, who allegedly disrupted the appellant's operations as part of a tax demand enforcement. -----Issues: 1- Whether the disruption of telecommunication services by the appellant was due to its negligence or an external force beyond its control. 2- Whether the fine imposed by the PTA was justified under the circumstances. 3- Whether the appellant's actions in response to the disruption were in compliance with the regulatory framework and license conditions. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Nature of the Disruption: The court determined that the service disruption was caused by the Commissioner Inland Revenue's actions, which included the attachment and shutdown of the appellant's BTS towers, rather than any negligence on the part of the appellant. This was considered an event of Force Majeure under Clause 12.4 of the appellant's license. ---Force Majeure Clause: The court highlighted the relevance of the Force Majeure clause, which excuses the appellant from fulfilling its obligations under the license if prevented by factors beyond its control. The court found that the appellant had informed the PTA about the disruption in a timely manner and that the PTA should have intervened to support the appellant against the Commissioner’s actions. ---Legal and Constitutional Violations: The court noted that the PTA's actions and the subsequent fine imposed on the appellant were not in accordance with the applicable legal framework and violated the appellant’s rights. The appellant had complied with the legal requirements by informing the PTA and attempting to resolve the issue through the appropriate channels. ---Absence of Negligence: The court found no evidence of deliberate failure or negligence on the part of the appellant to provide telecommunication services. The breakdown was attributed solely to the actions of the Commissioner Inland Revenue, making the fine unjustifiable. ---Prematurity of Proceedings: The court held that the proceedings were premature since the tax assessment/demand was still under adjudication before the relevant appellate forum. The appellant should not have been penalized before the final determination of the tax dispute. The appeal was accepted, and the impugned order dated 06.12.2021 was set aside. The court directed the PTA to consider the context and the Force Majeure circumstances that led to the service disruption, and ruled that the appellant could not be held liable for the breakdown caused by the Commissioner Inland Revenue's actions. -----Citations/Precedents: PLD 1991 SC 963: Evasion of duty not willful and deliberate, penalty is illegal. PTCL 1995 CL 415: Penalty not justified if there is no intent to evade tax. 2003 YLR 2736, 2004 YLR 1689, 2008 MLD 1377: Orders must be rational and fair, in compliance with Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act. 2012 CLC 1145: No penalty can be imposed for events caused by Force Majeure.

Summary: Against impugned letter dated 19.09.18 & 12.12.18 and 02.01.2019 and letter dated 17.01.2019 issued by respondent no.4 and actions taken pursuant to the letters (a) Telecommunications Law – Jurisdiction of PTA – Consultation Process Initiation: ----Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996, Ss. 4, 5 & 22(2) – PTA Functions and Powers Regulations, 2006, Regulation No.6 – Scope of PTA’s Jurisdiction Petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) to initiate a consultation process regarding wholesale IP bandwidth charges in US Dollars, arguing that Sections 4 and 5 of the 1996 Act do not empower PTA to initiate such a process. It was held that PTA must first decide on its own jurisdiction before proceeding with the consultation process. The issuance of a notice for consultation does not amount to an order or adjudication. Petitioners were directed to raise their objections regarding PTA's jurisdiction before the authority itself, which must decide the matter as a preliminary issue before proceeding further. -----Cited Cases: Zahid Zaman Khan v. Khan Afsar (PLD 2016 SC 409) Izhar Alam Farooqi v. Abdul Sattar Lasi (2008 SCMR 240) Muhammad Siddique Anwar v. Faisalabad Development Authority (2007 SCMR 1126) Mansab Ali v. Amir (PLD 1971 SC 124) ----Disposition: Petitions were disposed of with directions to PTA to decide jurisdictional objections as a preliminary issue before proceeding on merits. (b) Telecommunications Law – Regulatory Authority’s Powers – Validity of Regulation No.6 of PTA Regulations, 2006: ----Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996, Ss. 4, 5(2)(o) & 22(2) – PTA Functions and Powers Regulations, 2006, Regulation No.6 – Validity and Scope Petitioners challenged the vires of Regulation No.6 of the PTA Regulations, 2006, arguing that Sections 4 and 5 of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996 do not empower PTA to initiate a consultation process, except under Section 22(2) for license modification disagreements. The court held that the matter regarding the vires of Regulation No.6 requires detailed examination and remains pending for further arguments, including representation by the Attorney General. ----Disposition: Petition partially remains pending to the extent of the vires of Regulation No.6 of PTA Regulations, 2006. Interim relief was discontinued.

Summary: In this judgment, the court addressed the issue of whether notices and arrest warrants issued by the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) for recovery of dues can be enforced against the ex-directors of a company. The petitioners argued that the coercive measures were initiated against them for the recovery of dues from the company, even though they had no direct involvement in the company's operations during the period in question. The court considered the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the petitions and examines whether the notices and arrest warrants were issued within jurisdiction and in accordance with the law. The court also discussed the applicability of Section 316 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 (repealed), which required permission from the court to initiate legal proceedings against a company under certain circumstances, such as when a winding-up order or provisional manager had been appointed. The court concluded that the notices and arrest warrants issued against the ex-directors were without jurisdiction and lacked legal basis. The court sets aside the notices and warrants, emphasizing that this decision does not prejudice the rights of the respondents to pursue recovery of their dues against the company or other responsible parties.

Summary: Background:The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) initiated a process to open up the telecommunication sector and increase investment and competition. As part of this initiative, PTA invited bids for the award of two technology-neutral National Mobile Cellular Licenses through a bidding/auction process. The Consortium, comprising Space Telecom (Pvt.) Ltd. and two foreign companies, submitted a bid which was accepted by PTA for a license. However, the Consortium failed to make the required payment, leading to the forfeiture of the earnest money.---Issues:Whether the forfeiture of the earnest money by PTA was justified under the terms of the bidding process and the contract.Whether the petitioner, Space Telecom (Pvt.) Ltd., was entitled to a refund of its contribution to the earnest money.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court held that PTA was justified in forfeiting the earnest money based on the terms stipulated in the bidding process and the contract. The clauses in the Memorandum clearly stated that earnest money would be forfeited if the required payments were not made. The petitioner's argument that it was prevented from making the payment due to a court order was not convincing, as there was no evidence that the petitioner contested the suit or attempted to set aside the order. Additionally, the amount forfeited constituted a small percentage of the total bid and was deemed reasonable. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to a refund of the earnest money.---Citations/Precedents:Section 74 of the Contract Act, 1872Province of West Pakistan v Mistri Patel & Co. (PLD 1969 Supreme Court 80)Khanzada Muhammad Abdul Haq Khan Khattak & Co. v WAPDA (1991 SCMR 1436)Jameel Ahmed v Saifuddin (PLD 1994 Supreme Court 501)---Quote:A consortium, of which the petitioner was a member, submitted its bid for a cellular license which was accepted by the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA). The contract between the consortium and PTA thus stood concluded. Sub-clauses (k) and (n) of clause 9 and sub-clause (a) of clause 10 of the contract/the memorandum clearly stipulate that the earnest money will be forfeited if the requisite payments are not made. The Consortium having failed to fulfill their contractual obligations entitled PTA to forfeit the earnest amount.

Summary: ----Issue:The primary issue in this appeal concerns the liability of the appellant, Pakistan Telecommunication Employees Trust, to compulsory deduction of zakat under the Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980. The appellant contends that as a trust managing the