KARACHI, Dec 12: Justice S. Ahmed Sarwana of the Sindh High Court decided on Friday to hear a deputy attorney-general and an amicus curiae in an appeal moved by a channel distributor against the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Pemra).

The Karachi-based Dubai Marine Establishment (Pvt) Ltd stated in its appeal, filed through Advocates Mahmood Mandviwala and Ijaz Ahmad, that it was licensed by the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority to operate under the brand name ‘Star TV’ and to lease or sell cable television descrambler units in the country in September 2000 on payment of dues and subject to certain conditions set out in the Cable Television Regulations, 2000.

The PTA, however, issued the plaintiff a show-cause notice early in 2001 saying that complaints had been received from licensed cable operators against the high rate charged by it for the provision of decoder/scrambler for receiving Star TV encrypted channels and also against unilateral deactivation of services. The notice also asserted that the tariff being charged had not been approved by the PTA.

Subsequently, in Feb 2001, a ‘PTA Determination’ asked the distributors to offer individual channels and charge a maximum of Rs8 per month per subscriber for individual channels. The PTA determination was set aside by the high court in 2001.

In 2002, the Pemra, claiming to be successor to the PTA as a regulatory body, issued a new determination prescribing a tariff ceiling of Re1 per channel per subscriber per month for foreign channels and Rs2 per channel per subscriber per month for Pakistani and foreign sports channels. Foreign channels were required to include ‘Pakistani content’ and all charges were to be billed in Pakistani rupees.

The appellant questioned the determination as arbitrary. The rates were too low to sustain a distribution network. The Pemra, like the PTA, had no authority to regulate the services of channel distributors. Its jurisdiction was confined to TV stations and cable operators, it claimed.

On a query from the court, the appellant’s counsel submitted that new section (30-A) had been inserted in the Pemra Ordinance, 2000, to provide for an appeal to the high court against a Pemra decision. Justice Sarwana sought the assistance of a DAG and an amicus and adjourned the hearing to Dec 17. The stay granted against the impugned determination on Nov 25 was, meanwhile, extended.