' 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 passing a direction to respondent No.1 to issue a formal work order in pursuance to. The letter dated 4-6-2010. The petitioner has also prayed for restraining the respondents from passing any order adverse to the interest of the petitioner without seeking proper permission of this Court.
2. The facts, relevant for the disposal of the instant petition are that the respondents in pursuance to an advertisement in daily "Nawa-i-Waqt" dated 7-5-2007, conducted the auction of Ordinary Sand Block from an area measuring 494-21 acres near Kot Saleem/Head Qadirabad, District Hafizabad, wherein the petitioner gave highest bid amounting to Rs,23,00,000 and deposited 5% income tax on the spot. Thereafter, respondent No.1, vide letter dated 4-6-2010, accepted the bid of the present petitioner and directed the petitioner to deposit security amount of Rs,5,75,000 within fifteen days. The petitioner deposited the security amount of Rs,5,75,000 on 4-6-2010, but despite that, the work order was not issued to him. The petitioner contended that the department has now refused to grant lease of the area in dispute for the reasons best known to them. The petitioner claimed that a block/Bhoon Faazal/Bhoon Yara was put to auction on 2-6-2010 wherein work order has been issued to the highest bidder, namely, Muhammad Nawaz Gondal, on 9-6-2010. The petitioner alleged that discriminatory treatment is being meted out to him, which is violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Hence, the instant petition.
3. Respondents Nos.1 to 5 submitted their parawise comments, wherein they raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the instant petition on the plea that the petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy under Rule 235 of the Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002, and has approached this Court without awaiting the final order of the Revisional Authority/Secretary, Mines and Minerals, Government of the Punjab. Respondents Nos.1 to 5 contended that the Secretary, Mines and Minerals, Government of the Punjab, has suspended the order of the licensing authority, whereby the highest bid of the present petitioner amounting to Rs,23,00,000 was accepted and has initiated suo motu proceedings under Rule 235 of the Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002, and as such, the work order could not be issued to the present petitioner. They further contended that the parties entered into a pool during the open auction of the disputed block of Ordinary Sand, whereof the bidding competition was found to be unfair. They claimed that due to the manipulation of the parties, the block in dispute of Ordinary Sand could not be auctioned at a reasonable bid. The answering respondents also averred that the Revisional Authority/ Secretary, Mines and Minerals Government of the Punjab, has initiated proceedings under Rule 235(2) of the Rules ibid, wherein final order will be passed after hearing the present petitioner and taking into account all pros and cons of the case.
4. During the proceedings of the instant writ petition, the Secretary, Mines and Minerals, Department, Government of the Punjab, has passed an order on 14-7-2010, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Rule 235(2) of the Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002, whereby the order of the licensing authority, dated 4-6-2010, has been set aside and the block in question has been ordered to put for fresh auction on 3-8-2010.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 14-7-2010 has been passed by respondent No5/Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Mines and Minerals Department, during the pendency of the instant writ petition and as such, the same could not adversely effect the decision on the lis in hand.
6. On the contrary, leaned Additional Advocate-General submitted that the lease of any block of ordinary sand is regulated by Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002, which inter alia provided for grant of a lease to the highest bidder through issuance of allotment letter by the Secretary of the Mines and Minerals Department after deposit of the security deposit by the highest bidder, under Rule 206 ibid. He maintained that in the instant case, lease was not granted to the present petitioner and the instant petition was filed while the proceedings were being conducted by the Secretary, Mines and Minerals Department, Government of the Punjab, under Rule 235(2) of the Rules ibid. He further argued that the instant writ petition was pre-mature and as such, liable to be dismissed.
7. Arguments heard. Record perused.
8. Admittedly, the petitioner filed the instant petition on the basis of an order dated 4-6-2010, whereby respondent NoI./Assistant Director, Mines and Minerals Sialkot, had accepted his bid amounting to Rs,23,00,000 and directed to him to deposit security amount of Rs,5,75,000, within 15 days. The said letter seems to have been issued under Rule 201 of the Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002, but mere acceptance of the highest bid and deposit of the security deposit does not amount to grant of lease to the present petitioner. The lease in question could only be granted by the Secretary by way of issuance of an allotment letter, as provided in Rule 206 of the Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002. In the instant case, the Secretary, Mines and Minerals Department, Government of the Punjab, was conducting proceedings under Rule 235(2) of the Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002, at the time of the institution of the instant petition. Hence, there was no concluded contract between the parties, which was sought to be enforced by the petitioner through the instant petition. No doubt, the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Mines and Minerals Department, passed the order on 14-7-2010 during the pendency of the instant writ petition whereby the order of the licensing authority, dated 4-6-2010, in favour of the present petitioner, has been set aside, but the same cannot be ignored while deciding the instant petition as this Court had not restrained the department from conducting the proceedings initiated under Rule 235(2) of the Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002. From the bare perusal of the order dated 14-7-2010, it is revealed that the bidding competition, wherein the present petitioner gave the highest bid, was not fair and the Ordinary Sand Block, Kot Saleem/Head Qadirabad, District Hafizabad, which is in dispute, was auctioned at a lesser lease money as compared to its actual potential. The competent authority also came to the conclusion that the grant of lease of the area in question at a nominal lease money is not in the public interest. It is also worth consideration that not only the order dated 14-7-2010 has been passed by respondent No1 in exercise of the powers under Rule 235(2) of the Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002, but also after giving an opportunity to the present petitioner of being heard. Fresh auction of the area in question is likely to be held on 3-8- 2010 and the present petitioner would be at liberty to take part in the forthcoming auction.
9. In view of above, it is established that the petitioner had no vested right for obtaining the lease of the area in question merely on the basis of the acceptance of his highest bid, vide letter dated 4- 6-2010, issued by the licensing authority. The order dated 4-6-2010 has already been set aside by the lease granting authority i,e, Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Mines and Minerals Department, vide order, dated 14-7-2010. Hence, the instant petition is devoid of any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.