1994 PLP 459 (CLC)

Farooq Bedar, Add1.A.‑G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th March, 1993. In this Constitutional petition the legality of orders dated 21‑10‑1992 passed by respondent No.l communicated to the petitioner through Memo. No. V (I & MD) 1‑279/90 dated 24‑10‑1992 and earlier order dated 22‑10‑1991 passed by the respondent No.l and communicated through letter dated 4‑2‑1992 issued by respondent No.2 has been called in question.

2. The petitioner made an application for grant of prospective licence of coal‑mines for an area of 1,000 acres near Kuchh, District Mianwali which was duly registered at Serial No. 277 on 25‑3‑1987. The petitioner filed revised map for grant of coal‑mines licence; for area of 988.12 acres on 12‑9‑1987. This application remained pending. On 15‑4‑1991 respondent No.2 who is the licensing authority granted coal‑mines licence to the petitioner for an area 435 acres out of the said area and for the remaining his application was rejected as the said area was overlapping because licence for Iron Ore had already been granted to somebody else. The petitioner challenged the said order passed by respondent No.l in appeal which was disposed of through order dated 22‑1‑1991 by respondent No.l. It was observed by respondent No.l that he was not persuaded to interfere in the order of the Licensing Authority but observed that since the said overlapping area had already been surrendered by P.M.D.C. and Ch. Habib‑ur‑Rehman on 4‑10‑1988 therefore, the application of the petitioner should also be considered for the said area alongwith the others and for that limited purpose the case was remanded.

3. After the remand respondent No.2 upheld the previous order which was communicated to the petitioner through the impugned order dated 4‑2‑1992. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed by respondent No. 1 through the aforementioned order dated 21‑10‑1992.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner maintained that the area of 435 acres regarding which coal‑mines licence had already been granted to him was in fact of that area which had been surrendered by the P.M.D.C. and Ch. Habib‑ur‑Rchman therefore, the application of the petitioner for the remaining area should have been considered afresh and the order of remand passed by respondent No.l and 22‑10‑1991 has not been complied with.

5. I am afraid the argument is wholly misconceived. In this writ petition as also before respondent No.l the petitioner's case had been that his application qua the area surrendered by P.M.D.C. and Ch. Habir‑ur‑Rehman had not been considered and was in fact rejected on the ground that the said area was overlapping whereas the same having been already surrendered by P.M.D.C. and Ch. Habib‑ur‑Rehman therefore, his application should have been considered qua the said area and for this limited purpose, the case was remanded to respondent No. 2 by the respondent No. 1 by order dated 22‑10‑1991 who after the remand maintained the previous order.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade me that the case has not been decided in accordance with the terms of the remand order inasmuch as in the remand order the previous order was not interfered with as it was expressly held that no interference was to be made in that and the application of the petitioner was ordered to be considered only qua the land surrendered by P.M.D.C. and Ch. Habib‑ur‑Rehman. The previous order was rightly maintained by respondent No.2 as admittedly the licence for the said area surrendered by P.M.D.C. and Ch. Habib‑ur‑Rehman had already been granted to the petitioner.

7. For the foregoing reasons, no case has been made out for interference in Constitutional jurisdiction as no right of the petitioner has been infringed. The writ petition has no merits which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./H‑74/L Petition dismissed.