JUDGMENT SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, J.---Through the instant petition, under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the letter dated 21-1-2008, whereby the policy in respect of leases of the Dolomite and marble was changed by Government of the Punjab and also the letter dated 13-1-2011, rejecting the application of the petitioner for conversion of his prospecting licence into Mining Lease.
Brief facts of the case, as contained in the aforesaid writ petition, are that the present petitioner/Malik Sarfraz Khan was granted prospecting Licence No. PL-MLI Dolomite (31) over an area of 188.63 acres, near Chittawan, District Mianwali by respondent No.3/Director Small Scale Mines Assistants/Titles Punjab, Lahore on 2-9-2002 for a period of 5 years. Later on 4-9-2006 the petitioner applied for conversion of the said prospecting licence into Mining Lease. During the pendency of the said application, respondent No.3, vide letter dated 13-1-2011, cancelled the prospecting licence of the petitioner, in view of policy letter dated 21-1-2008, issued by the Government of the Punjab, Mines and Mineral. Department. Hence, the instant petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that neither any notice was issued to the petitioner nor he was given an opportunity of being heard by the respondents, prior to rejection of his application and cancellation of the Prospecting Licence, which is violative of the, principle of audi alteram parten. The learned counsel further contended that despite a report of the Inspecting Officers that a good quality of Dolomite is available in the area under the petitioner, the respondents have changed the nomenclature of the leased area, without any laboratory test. He next contended that the petitioner has invested a huge amount to build up infrastructure of roads etc. For transportation of the mineral and this fact is verified by the Inspecting Officers in their report. The learned counsel submitted that the observation of respondent No.3 that Dolomite is not available in the said area is absolutely incorrect. The learned counsel lastly argued that the petitioner is likely to suffer a colossal loss due to the act of the respondents.
4. The learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab while referring to the report and parawise comments submitted by the respondents has argued that prospecting licence for dolomite was issued to the petitioner for a period of three years i.e.f. 10-10-2005 to 9-10-2008. He further contended that application of the present petitioner for conversion of his prospecting licence into Mining Lease has been rejected on expiry of the lease period of the petitioner in view of the policy of the Government. He has argued that possession of the area under licence of the petitioner has been taken over by the respondents and put to auction on 7-3-2011. He next argued that the matter in hand involves disputed questions of fact, and as such, the present writ petition is not maintainable; that the petitioner is also a defaulter in payment of government dues; that the petitioner had previously filed a civil suit, which was dismissed as withdrawn. The learned Addl. A.G.
Has also attacked the maintainability of the instant petition, on the ground that the petitioner has not availed the alternate efficacious remedy of filing an appeal and the revision under Rules 185 and 185-A of the Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002. He has finally, submitted that there is no mala fide on the part of the respondents as the area under the petitioner has been reported to be predominantly containing limestone.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Admittedly, the lease period of the petitioner has expired and as per the report of the respondents, they have now taken over the possession of the area under the lease of the petitioner.
So much so, the said area has been put to auction, which fetched a bid of Rs.6,60,000 and offer letter issued on 17-3-2011 for a period of 10 years. The application of the petitioner for converting the prospecting licence into Mining Lease has been rejected under the policy of the Punjab Government, which has been approved by the Chief Minister of the Punjab. If the petitioner was aggrieved by any act of the respondents he could have filed appeal under Rule 185 of the Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002 and failing therein could have a resort to revision under Rule, 185-A of the Rules ibid. In presence of alternate and efficacious remedy of appeal and thereafter, revision, the present petition is not maintainable. Even otherwise, there is a serious dispute between the petitioner and the respondents qua the nature of the mineral, underneath the area under lease of the petitioner and this being a disputed question of fact obviously falls outside the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
7. In view of above, I see no merit in the present petition, which is accordingly, dismissed.,