Messrs Friends Coal Company through Director V. The Government of Balochistan, Civil Secretariat through Secretary Mines and another,
Bench: Shaukat Ali Rakhshani
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
A coal mining company in Balochistan had been granted a mining lease for 20 years in 2014, but after just six years, the government's Director General of Mines and Minerals cancelled the lease in 2018, citing the company's failure to submit required documents like a lease deed, exploration scheme, and demarcation certificate on time. The company appealed to the Secretary of Mines, but the appeal was dismissed. The company then challenged both decisions before the Balochistan High Court.
The High Court found that under the Balochistan Mineral Rules, 2002, before cancelling a lease for delay, the licensing authority must first satisfy itself that the delay was not the applicant's fault or was due to circumstances beyond their control. This requires proper inquiry and giving the affected party a chance to be heard. In this case, no notice was given to the company and no such inquiry took place before the lease was cancelled. The appellate authority also failed to address this failure and dismissed the appeal without giving reasons.
The court ruled that cancelling the lease without a hearing violated the fundamental right to fair trial and due process under Article 10-A of the Constitution, as well as basic principles of natural justice. It declared both the cancellation notification and the appellate order null and void, and sent the matter back to the mining department to hold a proper hearing and decide the case afresh on its merits. This case reinforces that government authorities cannot cancel licenses or take away rights without following fair procedure and giving affected parties a chance to be heard.
بلوچستان میں کوئلے کی کان کنی کرنے والی ایک کمپنی کو 2014 میں بیس سال کے لیے کان کنی کا لیز دیا گیا تھا، مگر محض چھ سال بعد، 2018 میں، حکومت کے ڈائریکٹر جنرل مائنز اینڈ منرلز نے یہ لیز منسوخ کر دیا۔ اس منسوخی کی وجہ یہ بتائی گئی کہ کمپنی نے مطلوبہ دستاویزات، جیسے لیز ڈیڈ، ایکسپلوریشن اسکیم اور ڈیمارکیشن سرٹیفکیٹ، وقت پر جمع نہیں کروائیں۔ کمپنی نے اس فیصلے کے خلاف سیکرٹری مائنز کے پاس اپیل کی، مگر وہ اپیل مسترد کر دی گئی۔ اس کے بعد کمپنی نے دونوں فیصلوں کو بلوچستان ہائی کورٹ میں چیلنج کیا۔
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ بلوچستان منرل رولز 2002 کے تحت، تاخیر کی بنیاد پر کسی لیز کو منسوخ کرنے سے پہلے لائسنس دینے والے ادارے کو یہ اطمینان کرنا ضروری ہے کہ آیا یہ تاخیر درخواست دہندہ کی غلطی سے ہوئی یا ایسے حالات کی وجہ سے ہوئی جو اس کے اختیار میں نہیں تھے۔ اس کے لیے مناسب تحقیقات ا
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
2024 C L C 167 [Balochistan] Before Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar and Shoukat Ali Rakhshani, JJ Messrs FRIENDS COAL COMPANY through Director---- Petitioner Versus The GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN, CIVIL SECRETARIAT through Secretary Mines and another ----Respondents Constitution Petition No.335 of 2023, decided on 15th June, 2023. (a) Balochistan Mineral Rules, 2002--- ----R. 46 ---Mining lease, cancellation of ---Opportunity of hearing not given--- Effect --- Mining lease for exploration of coal for period of 20 years was granted to the petitioner but the same was cancelled just after six years by the respondent (Director General Mines and Minerals) vide notification and the respondent (Secretary Mines and Minerals) also dismissed appeal preferred by the petitioner ---Validity ---Impugned notification/order revealed that mining lease, having been granted to the petitioner, was cancelled on account of non- submission of lease deed, exploration scheme and demarcation certificate within time --- However, the impugned notification/order did not reflect that before cancellation, any notice was issued to the petitioner or any order of satisfaction under Cl. (2) of R.46 of Balochistan Mineral Rules, 2002, ('the Rules, 2002') was drawn---Clause (2) of R. 46 of the Rules, 2002 manifested that the licensing Authority had to satisfy itself that the delay in execution was nether caused by the petitioner nor was due to the circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner, which inquiry did not seem to have taken place, in the present case, before cancellation of Mining License which (non- holding of inquiry) not only offended the said provision but the principle "Audi Alteram Partem" as well as the petitioner had not been provided with an opportunity of hearing by the respondent (DG Mines and Minerals) before cancellation of Mining License ---Similarly the respondent (Secretary Mines and Minerals)being appellate Authority also did not consider said aspect of the matter and endorsed the notification of cancellation of Mining License, through a non- speaking order by dismissing the appeal , which had made the same illegal and perverse ---Petitioner had made out a case for the High Court to intervene by invoking jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution ---High Court set aside impugned notification/ order passed by the respondents declaring the same null and void without any legal effect and remitted the case to the respondent (DG Mines and Minerals) to afford opportunity of hearing to the parties at lis and decide the case on merits ---Constitutional petition was partly allowed, in circumstances. (b) Constitution of Pakistan --- ----Art. 10 -A---Balochistan Mineral Rules, 2002, R. 46 ---Mining lease, cancellation of --- Opportunity of hearing not given---Effect ---Mining lease for exploration of coal for period of 20 years was granted to the petitioner but the same was cancelled just after six years by the respondent (Director General Mines and Minerals) vide notification and the respondent (Secretary Mines and Minerals) also dismissed appeal preferred by the petitioner ---Validity -- -Impugned notification passed by the respondent (DG Mines and Minerals) had been rendered in utter violation of Art. 10- A of the Constitution, which could not in any way be allowed to hold field--- High Court set aside impugned notification/ order passed by the respondents declaring the same null and void without any legal effect and remitted the case to the respondent (DG Mines and Minerals) to afford opportunity of hearing to the parties at lis and decide the case on merits ---Constitutional petition was partly allowed, in circumstances. Abdul Musavir for Petitioner. Shai Haq Baloch, A.A.G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th April, 2023. JUDGMENT SHAUKAT ALI RAKHSHANI, J. ----The petitioner has brought before us the captioned constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("Constitution"), seeking annulment of the impugned order dated 18.12.2018, passed by Director General Mines and Minerals ("DG Mines and Minerals') Government of Balochistan ("GoB") (respondent No.2), whereby the Mining Lease ("ML") No.ML -53(1778)/4607- 14 dated 24.06.2014 was cancelled and impugned order dated 19.11.2022 rendered by Secretary Mines GoB (respondent No.1), whereby his appeal was dismissed.
2. Relevant facts of the instant case are that the petitioner was granted a Prospecting License ("PL") over an area of 1239.66 acres situated near Habib Kila District, Duki for exploitation of coal, following issuance of allotment letter bearing No.PL -31(4517)/815- 24 dated 09.02.2008 and work order bearing No.PL -31(4517)/2538 -44 dated 28.03.2008 measuring an area of 1239.66 acres, which was subsequently converted into ML bearing No.ML -53(1778)/4607- 14 dated 24.06.2014 over an area of 999.16 acres for a period of 20 years, w.e.f. 09.02.2008, however later on vide notification No.ML -53(1778)/3749- 54 dated 18.12.2018, the ML of the petitioner was cancelled by respondent No.2 for non- compliance of the codal formalities, which order was assailed in appeal by the petitioner before the respondent No.1, who after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal, hence this petition.
3. In response to the notices issued by this Court, learned AAG appeared.
4. Heard. Record pondered upon with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AAG. The impugned order dated 18.12.2018 whereby the ML bearing No.ML -53(1778)/4607- 14 granted to the petitioner was cancelled on account of non- submission of lease deed, exploration scheme and demarcation certificate within time, does not reflect that before cancellation any notice was issued or any order of satisfaction under clause (2) of Rule 46 of Balochistan Mineral Rules of 2002 ("Rules of 2002") was drawn. For ease of reference, clause (2) of Rule ibid is reproduce hereunder; "(2) If the agreement in case of L.S. M and the lease deed in case of Small Scale Mining is not executed within three months of the communication of the approval of the application for a mining lease and the presentation of the mineral agreement/ lease deed for signature, the right of the applicant to such lease shall be deemed to have lapsed unless the licensing authority is satisfied that the delay in execution was not caused by the applicant or was due to circumstances beyond the applicant's control." [Emphasis supplied]
5. Clause (2) of Rule 46 of Rules of 2002 clearly manifest that the licensing Authority has to satisfy itself that the delay in execution was neither caused by the applicant nor was due to the circumstances beyond the control of the applicant, which inquiry does not seem to have taken place before cancellation of ML, which not only offends the provision ibid, but the principle "Audi Alteram partem" as well, because the petitioner has not been provided with an opportunity of hearing by respondent No.2 before cancellation of his ML. Apart from that, the order impugned has also been rendered in utter violation of Article 10 -A of the Constitution, which cannot in any way be allowed to hold field as the impugned notification of cancellation of ML is unsustainable for being perverse. Similarly, respondent No.1 being the appellate authority also did not consider such aspect of the matter and endorsed the notification of cancellation of ML dated 18.12.2018, through a non- speaking order by dismissing the appeal, which has made the same illegal and perverse, thus we are left with no other option but to intervene by invoking jurisdiction under Article 199 of Constitution.
6. In view of the above, the instant petition is partly allowed, the impugned notification dated 18.12.2018 rendered by respondent No.2 and order dated 19.11.2022 penned by respondent No.1 are declared null and void, without any legal effect and the case is remitted to the respondent No.2 to afford opportunity of hearing to the parties at lis and decide the case on merits at the earliest. MQ/126/Bal. Order accordingly.