2012 PLP 1830 (MLD)

MIFTAHUDDIN KHAN, J.

By this single judgment, we propose to dispose of two Writ Petitions bearing Nos. 2693 of 2011 and 2812 of 2011 as the facts and law point involved therein are common.

2. The petitioners are the residents of Darra Adamkhel, F.R. Kohat. They are Zarghunkhel by caste and allegedly claim to be owners of the area where coal mines are located. The respondents/ Govt. functionaries granted a lease to respondent No.4 Khan Afzal for a period of 15 years, vide lease agreement dated 25-6-2010. The petitioners aggrieved of the said lease agreement in favour of respondent No.4, approached the DCO/PA FR Kohat but in vain. Thereafter, they approached the respondent No.2, the licensing authority for the cancellation of said lease agreement who was pleased to turn down their application, vide order dated 5-9-2011. Aggrieved of the orders of the respondent No.2 refusing to cancel the lease agreement granted in favour of respondent No.4, the petitioners through these constitutional petitions have approached this court praying for the issuance of an appropriate writ declaring the lease agreement dated 25-6-2010 in favour of respondent No.4 and order dated 5-9-2011 rejecting their application for cancellation of lease agreement to be void ab initio and without lawful authority.

3. We have gone through the record carefully and also considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

4. Perusal of the comments furnished by the respondents would make it crystal clear that respondent No.4 was granted lease for the extraction of coal from the mine area after execution of Qaumi Agreement on 11-10-2006. This document shows that two of the petitioners are signatories to the same which means that they are stopped by their own conduct to challenge the lease agreement. Any how, if petitioners being Qaum and owners of the leased out area in question were aggrieved of the lease agreement in favour of respondent No.4, they would have resorted to the relevant provisions of the Qaumi Agreement and the matter should have been resolved by the Committee constituted for the purpose. Even if the Committee failed to resolve the matter, the petitioners would have approached the competent authority who granted licence and thereafter appeal should have been filed. In the instant case, no appeal has been filed under the N.-W.F.P. Mining Concessions Rules.

5. As regards the contention of the petitioners that they being owners of the said leased out area are legally entitled for the grant of lease to them and that the lease should not have been granted to respondent No.4 without the consent and active permission of the petitioners, suffice it to say that this matter pertains to factual controversy and this court while sitting in writ jurisdiction cannot resolve this controversy which requires recording of evidence which is not the domain of this court.

6. For the reasons discussed above, both the petitions being devoid of force stand dismissed. HBT/306/P Petitions dismissed.