12 FAO No. 42 of 2016. other provision which would vest the Authority with power and jurisdiction to suspend the services or operations of a licensed telecommunication service provider, thus depriving the customers or users from availing the facilities. The Federal Government is not empowered to issue any policy directive under section 8 of the Act of 1996 which is inconsistent with section 54(3) ibid. To the extent of inconsistency the policy directive will be ultra vires and void. The Policy Directive dated 26-12-2009, to the extent of its inconsistency with section 54(3), is without lawful authority and jurisdiction and, therefore, void. There is no force in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondent Authority that sub section (2) of section 54 of the Act of 1996 vests power in the latter to cause suspension of the mobile cellular service. The said provision can only be invoked in the eventualities described therein i.e. (i) war or (ii) hostilities against Pakistan by any foreign power or (iii) internal aggression or (iv) defense or security of Pakistan. Apprehensions relating to public safety, law and order or the happening of an untoward incident can by no stretch of the imagination attract section 54(2). Moreover, this provision merely envisages that, in the specific eventualities, the Federal Government shall have preference and priority in telecommunication systems over the licensee. The expression 'telecommunication system' has been defined in section 2(u). The preference or priority over the licensee is confined to the mediums described in the definition of the said expression