YAHYA AFRIDI, J.---Messrs Ghani Corporation, through its Chief Executive, has sought the indulgence of this Court for issuance of appropriate writ under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan for:-- "it is therefore, respectfully prayed that on acceptance of this petition, the order dated 28-7-2007 passed by respondent No,1 be declared illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect and be set aside with an opportunity to the petitioner to continue with it for further period of 20 years at reasonable consideration."
2. The brief and essential facts leading, to the present petition are that the present petitioner was granted by the respondent Authority lease for five years for mining chromite over 902 acres of an area in village Dhana, District Kohistan ("Lease Area") for lease amount of Rs,0.300 million vide an allotment letter dated 18-6-1991. The petitioner vide an application dated 15-6-1995 requested for renewal of the lease for a further term of 20 years. The competent authority allowed the petitioner three years extension till 5-5-1999. The petitioner could not exploit the full potential of the mining area and requested for a further extension of another 20 years. Having received no response from the competent authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority. On 30-10- 2000 the appeal of the present petitioner came up for hearing and the petitioner was given an opportunity to settle the long pending dispute of Surface Rent with the inhabitants of the area. In this regard the District Coordinate Officer ("DCO"), Kohistan was to coordinate the settlement between the parties. The comments offered by the respondent-Department suggest that despite several attempts made by the DCO and the respondent department to resolve the dispute, the petitioner did not take part in the said negotiations. Finally, the pending appeal of the present respondent was heard and rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 4-10-2007. Hence, the present petition.
3. In the meanwhile, the respondent-Department put up the Lease Area for public auction, which was duly advertised through public notices published in national dailies. In pursuance thereof, auction proceedings were held on 24-11-2007. Messrs Sardar Ali filed an application for impleadment as a respondent in the present petition on the ground that he was declared the successful bidder and awarded the lease for the Lease Area.
The said application for impleadment was allowed by this court vide order dated 28-10-2008.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner being the highest bidder had paid Rs,0.3 million as lease money and despite all efforts and heavy financial exposure in developing the essential infrastructure of roads and moving equipment to the Lease Area had resulted in rights in its favour. The learned counsel also contended that the dispute regarding surface rent with the local inhabitants of the Lease Area prevented the petitioner to continue with the mining operation. Hence, the petitioner legally deserved the extension of the lease period to fully utilize the mining potential of the Lease Area.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent-Department disputed the assertions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He stated that the lease of the petitioner having expired in 1996 was extended for a period of three years and despite the said extension no positive development was undertaken by the petitioner. The learned counsel further stated that the petitioner failed to respond to the efforts made by the local administration and the respondent-Department to resolve the dispute relating to the surface rent. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner had no legal standing to seek any extension of the Lease Area after the expiry of the term duly allowed under the initial lease and the extension thereof by the competent authority.
6. The learned counsel representing the newly-impleaded respondent namely, Messrs Sardar Ali, stated that the respondent-Department had advertised through public notices, the Lease Area for auction. In pursuance thereof Messrs Sardar Ali submitted his bid and was declared the highest bidder and accordingly was awarded, the lease for a period of five years for which he deposited the lease money of Rs,1.2 million. Thus valuable rights had accrued in his favour, which deserved consideration, and he urged this Court to allow the said respondent to commence his mining operation over the Lease Area in accordance with law.
7. The valuable arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly noted. The available record of the auction proceedings of the Lease Area provided to the court by the representative of the respondent-Department was perused and duly considered.
8. In regard to the petitioner, this court notes that with the initial lease period terminating in 1996 and thereafter the extended period also ending in 1999, the petitioner had no vested right to claim any further extension. The learned counsel was unable to provide any valid legal ground under the N.-W.F.P. Mining Concession Rules, 2005 ("Rules") for allowing any extension of the lease to the petitioner. The conduct of the present petitioner also reflects that despite repeated calls made by the local administration to resolve the dispute relating to surface rent, the said petitioner did not participate in the said proceedings. In view of the above, no case is made out in favour of the petitioner to be granted any relief as prayed for.
9. The matter does not end there. The record relating to the auction of the Lease Area held on 24- 11-2007 and what followed thereafter, he really shocked this court. In pursuance of, the advertisement of 11-11-2007 issued by the respondent-Department for auction of the Lease Area, six bidders submit their bids. Messrs Sardar Ali submitted the highest bid through sealed tender amounting to Rs,0.860 million. The record reveals that the said auction proceeding was rejected by the Director-General, Mines and Mineral, Government of N.-W.F.P. ("D.G."). The order on the said auction report states:-- "Rejected as the parties have not submitted bids transparently. Re-advertise."
(Sd.)
D.G. Mines and Minerals 24-11-2007"
The re-advertisement, as ordered by the D.G., never took place and instead open offers were obtained from the said six bidders, who raised their bids. Messrs Tamas Khan offered the highest bid of Rs,1.050 Million. Messrs Sardar Ali did not participate in the said proceedings, however, he on a piece of paper offered in writing Rs,1.115 million. Despite making the said offer, Messrs Sardar Ali, aggrieved of the cancellation of auction proceedings of 24-11-2007 and the order for re- advertisement for auctioning the Lease Area challenged the same in appeal. The appeal of Messrs Sardar Ali came up for hearing and was accepted by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 17- 5-2008, and it stated that:- "Considering arguments advanced by the either party and perusal of record I am convinced that the contention of Tehmas Khan is not tenable. His application for impleadment as party is not only time-barred but also has no locus standi. He has received call deposit back and was not the highest bidder in the sealed tender. On the other hand the contention of Mr. Sardar Ali is not devoid of force. He was the highest bidder in the seal tender and also offered the highest bid later on. He also offered Rs,12,00,000 before my predecessor, during argument on 22-3-2008, which is honoured. The case is delayed inordinately and the re-auction will further delay the mining process, with a very little hope of enhancement in the bid offer. In circumstances, the appeal in hand is accepted." (Emphasis provided)
10. What irks this court is that when the authority competent to decide on the bids had declared that the bids offered during the auction proceedings of 24-11-2007 were not transparent then setting the same at naught, without any valid, factual or legal basis is surely colourable exercise of authority and blatant abuse of discretion. The assertion of the appellate authority that no purpose would be served in case of re-auctioning the said lease area is contrary to the recorded facts. The record shows that in an auction on 21-4-2007 for the same mineral Chromite over an area of 774.11 acres in village Malidarra, District Kohistan, the highest bid accepted was for Rs,7.777 million.
11. Under the Rules the Secretary Mines and Minerals, Government of N.-W.F.P. Is the Appellate Authority. He is repository of public trust. He is to decide cases on valid considerations, the paramount being the proper exploitation of mineral resources in the area and safeguard the revenues generated therefrom. When there was such a high bid offered for the same mineral in the same district then accepting a lower bid without advertising as recommended by the D.G., is utterly illegal and blatantly absurd.
12. 'The rights of Messrs Sardar Ali when conferred to the public good and the public exchequer would surely be over shadowed. The paramount consideration being the public good rather than individual financial and pecuniary interest.
13. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, it appears that the, appellate authority, while deciding the appeal of Messrs Sardar Ali failed to G consider the "relevant" factors. Thus the need for the said appeal to be decided afresh in public interest.
14. We are aware of the fact that the said order of the appellatel authority dated 2-4-2008 has not been impugned in the present writ petition. However, we as constitutional Court cannot be silent spectators to such an abuse of authority. The illegality is glaringly floating on the record of the case. Public revenues, the protection thereof is a paramount obligation of every organ of the State, moreso of the judiciary. We are not to sit mum and hand folded to such excesses been made.
' Gone are the days, when constitutional jurisdiction was considered lame to interfere in orders which were wrong in law passed by an authority acting under a statute. The august Supreme Court in its celebrated judgment of Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. v. Puniab Labour Appellate Tribunal (PLD 1987 SC 447) has set at rest this limited vision for constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The judgment commanded; "It is not right to say that the Tribunal, which is invested with the jurisdiction to decide a particular matter, has the jurisdiction to decide it "rightly or wrongly" because the condition of the grant of jurisdiction is that it should decide the matter in accordance with the law. When the Tribunal goes wrong in law, it goes outside the jurisdiction conferred on it because the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide rightly but not the jurisdiction to decide wrongly. Accordingly, when the Tribunal makes an error of law in deciding the matter before it, it goes outside its jurisdiction and, therefore, a determination of the Tribunal which is shown to be erroneous on a point of law can be quashed under the writ jurisdiction on the ground that it is in excess of its jurisdiction. It needs hardly be said that under Article 4 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, it is the right of every individual to be dealt with in accordance with law. Where the law has not been correctly or properly observed a case for interference by the High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction is made out." Even otherwise, relief can be molded by the High Court in constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution. Reliance is placed on Sharaf Faridi v. The Federation of Islamic Republic of Pakistan (PLD 1989 Karachi 404) and Mst. Oamar Loan v. Messrs Kashmirian (Pvt.) Ltd. (PLD 1997 Karachi 376).
15. In the circumstances of the present case and for reasons stated herein above, this court directs that:--
(i) Messrs Ghani Corporation has no right to claim an extension of the j lease period over the Lease Area which had already expired.
(ii) The allotment of lease to Messrs Sardar Ali for a period of 5 years for lease amount of Rs,1.2 million is illegal, void and contrary to law.
(iii) The order dated 20-4-2008 passed by the appellate authority in favour of Messrs Sardar Ali is set aside and the appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal afresh, within a period of 30 days, after considering all the aspects of the case, legal and factual. Surely, Messrs Sardar Ali is to be provided an opportunity of hearing before any order is passed, by the appellate authority.
16. Accordingly, this writ petition along with all miscellaneous applications are disposed of in the above terms.