2020 C L C 152
[Balochistan]
Before Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Rozi Khan Barrech, JJ
PURE MINERAL (PVT.) LIMITED through duly Authorized Attorney --- Petitioner
Versus
PROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN through Secretary, Mines and Mineral Development
Department, Quetta and 2 others ----Respondent
C.P. No. 189 of 2018, decided on 29th August, 2019.
Balochistan Mining Concessions (Acquisition) Act (VIII of 1973) ---
----Cls. 3 & 9 --- Balochistan Mineral Rules, 2002, Rr. 11(1)(b), 27(2) & 91 ---Exploration
license, withdrawal of ---Laches ---Jurisdiction of government ---Vested right ---Petitioner was
a mining company which was granted exploration license but same was subsequently
withdrawn as being inadvertently issued ---Validity ---Neither any prospecting licens e was
issued over concerned area in favour of petitioner nor possession of said area was handed
over to petitioner --- Allotment letter for exploration of minerals was issued to petitioner for a
period of three years which period also expired and petitioner neither applied for extension
of license nor it was in possession of the area ---Government had the prerogative either to
extend period of license, refuse its extension or convert the same into lease ---Government
had already shown its intention not to exte nd license period in favour of petitioner, therefore,
petitioner had no vested right to claim relief as prayed --- Notification of authorities was
challenged by petitioner after lapse of more than five years and apparently petition also
suffered from laches ---No period of limitation had been prescribed for filing of a
Constitutional petition under Art.199 of Constitution but it had to be filed within reasonable
time--- Reasonable time for filing of appeal/revision before court was normally three
months --- High Court declined to exercise Constitutional jurisdiction to interfere in order
passed by Government as petitioner had not moved any application for condonation of laches
by giving reasons, hence, inordinate and unexplained delay in approaching High Court was
not condoned ---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Khiali Khan v. Haji Nazir and four others PLD 1997 SC 304 rel.
Saifullah Kakar for Petitioners.
Shai Haq Baloch, A.A.G. for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 19th June, 2019.
JUDGM ENT
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, molyb denum
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 Copp er-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 meet ing 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 t he 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 Notificatio n 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 pet itioner 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 petiti oner 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, fac ts 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 prerog ative 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 ves ted 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 Chair manship 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 t heir 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, EL2 6 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 sen t 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
produ ced 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 are a 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 obj ection 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, w hich 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
reason able 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, wh ich 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 heari ng 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 petitio ner
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, in ordinate 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 wha t 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.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.