1994 PLP 1246 (MLD)

This Constitutional petition is directed against the order dated 28-10-1991 of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, setting aside the order dated 16-9-1990 of the learned Civil Judge by which Local Commissioner was appointed.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the present petitioner filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 after rejection of his application for prospecting licence to hand over an area of 740 acres for mining purposes. This suit was resisted by the respondents. An application was filed by the petitioner for appointment of Local Commissioner for inspection of the site in order to find out if the area was available (unproved) under the Pakistan Mining Concession Rules, 1960. The application was accepted by the learned Civil Judge vide his order dated 16-9-1990 against which the appeal was filed by the respondents and the same was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge vide his order dated 28-10-1991.

3. It was pleaded on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner submitted application for the grant of prospecting licence and the same was rightly rejected by them and this was within their competence.

4. The learned appellate authority extensively discussed the issue as to whether the appointment of the Local Commissioner was justified on the facts and circumstances of the case and it was held in para. 8 of the impugned order as follows:

"It was contended in the plaint of this case that twice the area in question was inspected by the competent Authority and such inspection reports were already available on record with the petitioners. There appears to be no legal justification for appointment of local commission again by the learned trial Judge vide the impugned order for the same purpose. Even otherwise it was not shown on behalf of the respondent that he had a vested right to claim prospecting licence for the area in question. Any further legal inspection in view of the circumstances contained in the pleadings of the parties are not likely to result in delay in the disposal of main case but would unnecessarily burden the parties with costs and inconvenience. It was not shown on behalf of the respondent that the petitioners were not competent legally to refuse to the grant of prospecting licence to him. It was also not shown at this stage even prima facie that whatever the report of the local commissioners may be, it was likely to create new rights and privileges in respect of present proceedings in favour of the respondent."

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and find that the learned appellate authority has given cogent and sustainable reasons for reversing the order of the learned Civil Judge dated 16-9-1990 initially appointing the local commission. The impugned order is not in any way arbitrary and capricious. In view of this the writ petition has no merits and is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./W-47/L Petition dismissed,