'SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.--- The petitioners through institution of a civil suit, challenged the claim of the respondents for payment of Rs,45,00,000 and Rs, 3,502,827 regarding alleged unauthorized excavation of slate stone (ordinary stone) at Haji Shah, Kamjra, Tehsil and District Attock. Learned trial Court dismissed the suit while appeal of the petitioner was accepted by the lower appellate Court ex parte and suit was returned to the petitioner for it's presentation before the competent forum. The petitioners thereafter filed an appeal before respondent No,3 under Punjab Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1990. Respondent No, 2 vide order, dated 11-6-1990 while exercising powers under section 32 Punjab Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1990 assessed the liability against the petitioner and directed Deputy Director, Rawalpindi Region to recover the dues as per rules. The petitioner assailed the order before Secretary to Government of the Punjab Mines and Minerals Department, who vide order, dated 31-7-2006 dismissed the revision petition on the plea that the matter has since been pending before District Judge, Attock, therefore, the matter cannot proceed before the Secretary Mines and Minerals Department. The petitioners have assailed the order of the Secretary through invoking extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had the remedy of an appeal before the Director Industries and Minerals Department under Rule 48 of the Punjab Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1990 and had also the remedy of revision petition before the. Secretary to Government of the Punjab Mines and Minerals Department. The civil suit filed by the petitioner assailing the levy by the respondents and the show cause notice was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Learned appellate Court maintained and confirmed the order of learned trial Court on the question of jurisdiction. He has submitted that when the courts have concurrently found that Civil Court has no jurisdiction then learned Secretary, while deciding the revision petition has erroneously dismissed the revision petition of the petitioners on the plea of pendency of suit and availment of remedy of appeal.
3. Learned Law Officer has fully supported the impugned judgments and submitted that as per Rule 236 of the Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002, the respondents have no cause before the Court.
Learned Law Officer has placed reliance on the case of Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. And others v. M. Akram Khan and others 2004 PLC (C.S.) 992.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and record perused.
5. The question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court was determined by the learned trial Court and it was held that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to call in question, the demand raised by the respondents, qua the claim of unauthorized excavation. Learned appellate Court while returning to the petitioner his plaint under Order VII Rule 10, C.P.C. Has observed that the judgment and decree of learned trial Court to the extent of decision on the question of jurisdiction is not open to exception. When both the courts have concurrently arrived at the conclusion that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction , the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Rule 48 of Punjab Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1990 before the Secretary to Government of the Punjab Mines and Minerals Department, is not liable to be dismissed on the plea of filing of the suit or assailing the judgment and decree of the trial Court in appeal.
'Respondent No,4 has passed the impugned order erroneously and the same is set aside having been passed without any lawful authority. Resultantly, the revision petition filed by the petitioners is deemed to be pending before respondent No,2, who will decide the same within the parameters of law on it's own merits.