1996 SCMR 382 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD BASHIR ‑KHAN JEHANGIRI, J ‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, dismissing in limine a Constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, to call in question an order passed by Director, Industries and Mineral Development, Punjab, dated 12‑9‑1994 rejecting application for conversion of mineral licence into lease and that of the Secretary to Government of the Punjab in the Industries and Mineral Development, Lahore, upholding the aforesaid order.

2. Under the Pakistan Mining Concession Rules, 1960, a coal prospecting licence was granted to one Subedar (Retd.) Muhammad Akram covering an area of 282.2 acres situated near Lahri Shah Nawaz, District Chakwal. On 10‑9‑1986 the Government of Punjab enforced its own Rules called the Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 1986 (to be hereinafter called as the Mining Rules). Rule 4 of the Mining Rules, validated the licences and leases or renewed under the Mining Rules, 1960. On 18‑3‑1990, Subedar (Retd.) Muhammad Akram made an application to respondent No.l for conversion of his coal prospecting licence into a long term mining lease which was deferred for two years on yearly basis "for enabling the‑said petitioner to discover coal from his area after further prospecting". In the same year, i.e.,. 1990, the petitioner, a new firm under the name and style of Messrs Hazara Punjab Coal Company including Subedar (Retd.) Muhammad Akram came into being after acquiring the rights of prospecting held by the latter. The petitioner claimed to have accelerated the prospecting work and by the end of August, 1994, "had discovered black shale (coal dust) which was indicative of the petitioner having proved the area "which terminology according to the petitioner "means that coal deposits are discovered from the area". The grievance of the petitioner is that "on 12‑9‑1994, the petitioner received a cyclostyled paper having certain blank spaces which were filled in giving an impression that the conversion application had been dismissed". The petitioner filed an appeal which too was dismissed on 18‑1‑1995.

3. Feeling still dissatisfied, the petitioner challenged the decisions of respondents Nos. l and 2 by means of Constitutional. petition substantially on the ground that respondent No: l did not give opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner which "rendered the entire proceedings void ab initio, without lawful authority and mala fide". This assertion was controverted by the learned A.A.‑G. who represented respondents Nos.l, 2 and

3. The learned Judge in Chamber held that prospecting licence which was granted in the year 1985, had expired after lapse of statutory period of five years in the year 1990 and further that application for conversion of licence was filed under Rule 35 ibid for conversion of licence into lease "which was deferred thrice in order to give the petitioner an opportunity to complete the prospecting work to the satisfaction of the Licensing Authority and as the petitioner had failed to earn conversion of licence into lease, it was ultimately dismissed on 8‑8‑1994". It was also noted by the learned Judge that upon refusal in the year 1990 by respondent No. I to renew the licence, it was renewed ‑with the intervention of respondent No.2. The controversy as to whether the petitioner had succee4ed in proving the existence of coal in the licensing area, according to the learned Judge, was beyond the scope of the Constitutional jurisdiction. The petition was, therefore, dismissed in limine.

4. Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, learned counsel for the petitioner, has reiterated his contention and urged that the impugned orders have been passed without any notice to the petitioner and, therefore, it offended against the principle of natural justice enshrined in the maxim ' audi alteram partern'. In the circumstances of this case, however, we have not been impressed by this argument.

5. It is not denied that the petitioner has not been able to show to respondent No.1 during all that period from 1990 onwards that it had successfully discovered the coal from the licensed area. It was urged before us that at the end of August, 1994, the petitioner had discovered black shale (coal dust) which was indicative of the fact that the petitioner had proved the area for coal. The petitioner was under a bounden duty to have annexed with the application a report of any mining engineer or mining concern in proof of its claim. The prospecting licence was issued for awarding lease of the area on successful exploitation/exploration of the area. If the licence even after the statutory period of five years has not been able to prove to the satisfaction of the leasing authorities that his efforts have been fruitful, then there remains no basis for grant of leasing rights by respondent No. l

6. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the petitioner ha snot been able to make out a case for grant of leave in this petition which is dismissed accordingly. A.A./H‑240/S Leave refused.