' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.--- Messrs Tribal Coal Company Dukki, District Loralai after leave of the Court, have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 28-5-1998 of the High Court of Balochistan passed in Constitution Petition No,432 of 1998.
2. The company, under section 7 of the Balochistan Mining Concession Rules, 1970 (BMC) submitted application to seek the grant of a prospecting licence for an additional area of 123.9 acres to be included in their mining lease already existing since 15-5-1981. The Licensing Authority on 28-2-1991 informed the applicant that the aforesaid area stood already leased out to Messrs Kala Khan Tarin Coal Company Dukki District Loralai (hereinafter to be mentioned as Tarin Coal Company). The petitioner's claim was that the aforesaid property was purchased by them from Tarins and thus, being owner in possession, it be included in the area under their lease.
3. Tribal Coal Company filed an appeal before the Secretary Industries against the aforesaid order, dated 28-2-1991 of the Licensing Authority who, vide order dated 29-12-1991 remanded the case to the Licensing Authority to decide the matter after examining the entire Revenue Record and after allowing full opportunity to the opposite leasing company. Against this order of remand Train Coal Company filed a writ petition which was accepted and the order, dated 29-12-1991 of the appellate authority was set aside. Tribal Coal Company approached this Court and its appeal was allowed on 22-6-1994, review against which was also dismissed on 13-11-1996. Eventually, the Licensing Authority vide order, dated 16-8-1997 cancelled the area to the extent of 223.86 acres from the total lease of Tarin Coal Company. After dismissal of their departmental appeal, they again approached the High Court which was accepted on 28-5-1998 through the impugned order and hence this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant challenged the impugned judgment on the ground that both the forums despite having held that a substantial lease area of Tarin Coal Company having remained unexploited for a period of 25 years, failed to appreciate the implications of rules 32 and 47 of BMC Rules and that the High Court also failed to deal with this aspect of the case. Rule 32(d) of BMC Rules which seems somewhat relevant reads as under:- "(d) If in the opinion of the licensing authority the Licensee has failed to fulfil the working obligations including acceptance of terms and conditions of- the letters of allotment, payment of Government dues, demarcation of the area, submission of prospecting scheme and submission of prescribed progress reports, or has not carried out reasonable prospecting work, the Licensee shall forfeit the right of renewal of the prospecting licence or grant of mining lease over whole or any part of the area covered by the licence."
5. A perusal of the above rule would indicate that numerous conditions mentioned therein pertain to the commencement of the work and certain preparations before such announcement. The only referable phrase is that the licensee shall forfeit the right of renewal in case he has not fulfilled the conditions laid down. It does not provide at all that the entire leasing area must be brought under prospecting work at one and the same time. The argument does not fit in the scheme of rule 32 as well as rule 47.
6. After a lengthy discussion of the subject, when the learned counsel for the appellant was asked as to what was his locus standi for asking cancellation of disputed area from the lease area of the respondent company and inclusion thereof into their lease area, it was claimed singularly that the ownership of the appellant of such area vested .Them with a right to hold the lease thereof. When asked as to what relevant Rule of BMC Rules vests an owner with a preferential right to obtain lease, the learned counsel very candidly conceded that there was none.
7. It may be recalled that the mineral of the kind, under the admitted law belong3 to the Government concerned and the owner is entitled only to the compensation or the royalty. Be that as it may, one thing is exclusively determined that owner by virtue of merely being an owner does not possess any preferential right for obtaining any prospecting licence or mining lease. Another aspect might be of substantial, reference, to the effect that Tarin Coal Company had obtained lease of their area in the year 1972 while appellant's purchase from Tarins of the disputed area had taken place in the year 1981, when it already was on lease with the respondent-company.
8. The learned counsel also contended that disputed area had inadvertently been included in the prospecting licence of respondent and that thus, it could be reviewed under mule 10 of BMC Rules.
The facts on record indicate that no area was so included out of inadvertence.
9. For all that has been discussed, there appears no merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed.