2013 PLP 1108 (CLC)

MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J.

The petitioner being aggrieved with regard to the order passed by the appellate authority dated 28-5-1992 through which the Prospecting License for Laterite over an area of 200 acres was refused by the Licensing Authority and the appellate authority upheld the same.

2. Brief facts leading to present petition as stated are that the present petitioner applied for grant of Prospecting License. Three more persons also applied for grant of Prospecting License in respect of the same area. As the area applied for by the appellant was involved in overlapping with each other, so the application of all the applicants were sent to the Environmental Department for NOC. The same Department issued four numbers of NOC over the same area for granting Prospecting License, thus the applications were placed before the Mines Committee in its meeting held on 19/20-4-2011. The Mines Committee, deferred the matter with observations to constitute a committee comprising of Deputy Director Exploration, Senior Inspector of Mines and Mineral Development Officer, Headquarter Office to inspect the area for availability of mineral and its feasibility for auction as per Mine Mineral Rules. The report was submitted and on receipt of inspection note, all the applications were again placed before Mines Committee in its meeting held on 25-10-2011. On the recommendations of Mines Committee, the Licensing Authority rejected all the applications and reserved the area for auction having "proved mineral" of Iron Ore.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the present petitioner preferred appeal before the Secretary Mineral Development Department Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Appellate Authority) who vide the impugned decision dated 28-5-2012 rejected the appeal and directed Licensing Authority to auction the area at the earliest in the best public interest.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that he is already holding a Prospecting License for 200 Acres and the remaining two applications were turned down without going into the merit of his case. He also stressed that no overlapping, as was found by the Committee exists on the spot and in order to favour their blue eyed, department refused his applications.

5. Conversely the learned A.A.-G. while supporting the judgment of the Appellate Authority draw the attention of this Court to a recent judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.1777 of 2010, authored by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court.

6. While dealing with the similar circumstances, the writ was disposed of in the following terms:

"In view of the amendments introduced in the Mining Minerals Lease Rules, a committee for auction of such lease has been duly appointed and notified which invites bidders through public notice and in a fair competition the lease is granted through public auction which fetch more money for Government Treasury, therefore, the petitioner has to participate in the public auction because he cannot claim any indefeasible right with regard to the grant of lease and that too through a writ petition. Similar view was expressed by this Court much earlier almost two years back which was upheld by the Hon'ble apex Court and this was also followed in Writ Petition No.1845 of 2010 decided on 11-2-2012, therefore, this petition, being found devoid of legal merits, is dismissed."

7. From the available record it was noticed that the area applied for by the present petitioner was having deposit of Iron Ore/Laterite and where the area is with "proved mineral" no Prospecting License can be granted without open auction in terms of Rule, 185 of the Mining Concession Rules, 2005. Further the area is declared by the inspection team as the mineralization of bed of Iron Ore and was exposed along with the strike with three quarries in the development stage with a good quality of Iron Ore. Thus recommendation of auction of the area was in consonance with the Mining Minerals Lease Rules. The petitioner cannot claim any indefeasible right with regard to grant of Prospecting License where the area is declared as of "proved mineral". No fundamental right has been violated and the efficacious, alternate remedy in the shape of participation in public auction is available to him. In the light of the facts and circumstances mentioned above and also relying on the earlier judgment of this Court, this petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. SAK/163/P Petition dismissed.