2020 PLP 152 (CLC)

ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J.

Facts of the case are that in the year 2011, the petitioner being a private limited company submitted an application before respondent No.2 (Director General Mines and Minerals Development Department) ("DG") for Exploration License ("EL"), which was accepted by respondent No.2 vide letter dated 30th November 2011, offering an area measuring 247.68 square kilometers in District Chaghi ("granted area") for exploration of copper, gold, led, zinc, silver platinum-group metals, molybdenum and associate metallic minerals in the concerned area and subsequently the petitioner was granted EL No.102 for exploration of the above minerals for a period of three years. On 31.12.2011 the respondent No.2 purporting to act under Rules 11 (1)(b), 27(2) and 91 of the Balochistan Mineral Rules, 2002 withdrew the offer letter on the ground that the said letter was "inadvertently" issued. The Mines Committees, in its meeting held on 20-12-2012, acquired the area under EL6 in favour of Balochistan Copper-Gold Project. The said acquisition was notified on 22-12-2012 (the "impugned notification") in terms of Balochistan Mining Concessions (Acquisition) Act, 1973 (the "Act"). The petitioner claimed that the decision taken by the mines committee in its meeting dated 20.12.2012 as well as the issuance of the impugned notification is tantamount to colorable exercise of jurisdiction, which cannot be sustained under the law, hence the instant petition has been filed with the following prayer; "i. Declare that the Impugned Decision of the Mines Committee and the Impugned Notification issued by Respondent No.2 is illegal, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect whatsoever and to set aside the same; ii. In the alternative, declare that the Impugned Notification does not apply to the Petitioner or to EL 102 or to the Granted Area and to direct the Respondents to issue the Work Order; iii. Grant such other relief as this Honourable Court deems just and equitable."

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the available record.

3. Through this petition, the petitioner claims that the notification issued by respondent No.2 is illegal and without jurisdiction. It is an admitted fact that though the granted area was allotted to the petitioner on 03.12.2011 but subsequently on 31.12.2011 the said area was withdrawn by the DG Mines and Minerals Development Government of Balochistan on the ground that allotment letter dated 03.12.2011 was inadvertently issued. The petitioner also filed constitutional petition bearing No.767 of 2014 with the prayer "to grant permission to the petitioner for carrying out work in granted area" but the same was dismissed vide order dated 15.06.2017 passed by this court.

4. From the above, facts and circumstances it appears that neither any prospecting license was issued over the concerned area in favor of the petitioner nor possession of the said area was handed over to the petitioner. Furthermore, the allotment letter No. EL(102)/5740-41 for exploration of minerals was issued to the petitioner on 03.12.2011 for a period of three years, which period has also been expired. The petitioner neither applied for extension of the license, nor it is in possession of the area. Moreover, it is the prerogative of the Government, either to extend the period of license, refuse its extension or convert it into lease. The Government has already shown its intention not to extend the license period in favor of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner has no vested right to claim the relief as prayed.

5. So far is the notification dated 24.12.2012 is concerned, the record unveils that the meeting of the Mines Committee of the Board of Governors of REKODIK Copper-Gold Project was held on 12.09.2012 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Minister Balochistan. It was decided in the said meeting that all the reserved areas of EL, EL6, EL9, EL26 and EL27 be acquired for Balochistan Copper Gold Project. The minutes of the above meeting were produced by the respondents in their parawise comments. On the basis of above minutes of meeting, another meeting was held in the Directorate General of Mines and Minerals under the Chairmanship of Director General Mines and Minerals, consequent upon which the areas of EL5, EL6, EL8, EL26 and EL27 were acquired in favor of Government of Balochistan Copper and Gold Project under the Land Acquisition Act, 1973. Pursuant to the above meeting, the impugned notification dated 24.12.2012 was issued, whereby copy of the said notification was sent to the Controller, Government Printing Press for publication in Balochistan Official Gazette, who published the same in the official gazette vide Notification dated 24th December, 2012 (Registered No. S-2771). Copy of the said notification was also produced before this court along with the parawise comments filed by the respondents.

6. The provision of Clause 3 of the Balochistan Mining Concessions (Acquisition) Act, 1973 reads as follows: "whenever the Government is satisfied that a mining concession is needed for a public purpose, it may acquire such mining concession in accordance with the provision of this Act." The acquired area for Balochistan Copper Gold Project by applying the Balochistan Mining Concession (Acquisition) Act, 1973, clause 9, which clearly enables the respondents to do so. It is worthwhile to mention here that on 03.12.2011 the allotment letter was issued in favor of the petitioner and the same was withdrawn on 31.12.2011. Neither any prospecting license has been issued over the area in favor of the petitioner nor possession of the area was ever handed over to the petitioner and no work order was issued in favor of the petitioner till date and the notification was issued on 24.12.2012, therefore, no question arises for calling an objection from petitioner or any compensation, therefore the notification dated 24.12.2012 wherein certain area was reserved in favor of Balochistan Copper Gold Project under the Balochistan Mining Concessions (Acquisition) Act, 1973 was in public interest, which is legal, lawful and in accordance with law.

7. The impugned notification dated 24.12.2012 of the respondent is challenged by the petitioner through the instant constitutional petition, which was filed on 08.03.2018 after lapse of more than five years. Apparently, the petition is also suffering from laches. There is no period of limitation prescribed for filing of a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 but it has to be filed within a reasonable time. What is the reasonable time, has been interpreted by the superior judiciary of the country as time requisite for filing of appeal/revision before this court, which is normally three months. The petitioner filed different constitutional petitions before this court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the same grounds, which is agitated in the instant petition but in the previous constitutional petition he challenged the withdrawal of allotment and non-issuance of work order. The first CP bearing No.424 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner before this court in the month of June 2012 and the same was withdrawn on 06.06.2012. The second CP bearing No. 670 of 2013 was filed by the petitioner before this court in the month of September 2013, which was also withdrawn on 05.12.2013 on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner. The third CP bearing No. 767 of 2014 was filed by the petitioner before this court on 08.10.2014 and the same was dismissed on 15th June 2017 by this court on merits. The petitioner being aggrieved from the said order filed CP No. 2975 of 2017 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan on 20.10.2017, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the following order: "We have heard learned ASC in this matter. While hearing it has been brought to our attention that vide Notification dated 24.12.2012 at page-96 of the record the area EL-6, which is claimed by the petitioner was reserved in favor of Messrs Balochistan Copper Gold Project, Government of Balochistan under the Balochistan Mining Concessions (Acquisition) Act, 1973 in greater national interest. Learned ASC has contended that this very Notification never came to be challenged by the petitioner. He states that petitioner will not press this petition if the petitioner is allowed to avail remedy as is available to him. In the circumstances, the petition is dismissed as not pressed and the petitioner may avail remedy in accordance with law."

8. It is important to mention here that while the petitioner filed CP No.670 of 2013 and CP No.767 of 2014 before this court. The respondents at that time filed parawise comments along with copy of the impugned notification, wherein the respondents clearly mentioned about issuance of the impugned notification dated 24.12.2012. The present petition is also hit by the principle of laches, as the impugned notification was already been published in the Balochistan Gazette vide Notification dated 24th December, 2012 (Registered No. S-2771), meaning thereby that the petitioner was aware of the impugned notification, but in spite of it, the petitioner filed the constitutional petition after lapse of five years, without explaining the laches. The petitioner did not move any application for condonation of latches by giving reasons, hence, inordinate and unexplained delay in approaching this court could not have been condoned. Reference in this behalf can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khali Khan v. Haji Nazir and 4 others (PLD 1997 SC 304). In view of what has been discussed above, this constitution petition is dismissed being devoid of merits. The parties are left to bear their costs. MH/89/Bal Petition dismissed.