QAZI FAEZ ISA, C.J.---That the petitioner, a wholly owned Government of Pakistan Corporation, holds a number of coal mining leases, which were cancelled by the Director General, Mines and 53(1156)/5760-70 dated 9th December, 2011 "the impugned Notification"), reproduced hereunder:- - "NOTIFICATION Whereas Messrs Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation (PMDC) were served with show-cause notice and final show cause notice for subletting their areas to the Raising Contractors/private Parties, non-submission of documents/ agreements with awarded plans, executed with private parties/Raising Contractors in respect of their coal projects in Degari, Sorrange and Sharigh but they gave no positive response to these notices. Now, therefore, the Licensing Authority, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Rules 64(6) of the Balochistan Minerals Rules, 2002, is pleased to cancel with immediate effect these, mining leases and also cancel meanwhile the raising challans/randaries issued in the name of M/S PMDC:-- S. No.Name and Address of Mine OwnersFile No.Area and Location 1 Messrs Pakistan Mineral Development,ML- 53(1525)3779.111 Acres Corporation(PMDC), Bijli Road Quettasituated near Degari District Quetta.
2 Messrs Pakistan Mineral Development .
Corporation(PMDC)ML- 53(1577)62.5 Acres situated near Degari District Quetta.
3 Messrs Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation(PMDC)ML- 53(1156)1674.51 Acres situated near Sorrange District Quetta.
4 Messrs Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation(PMDC)ML- 53(1201)1245.49 Acres situated near Sharig District Harnai.
5 Messrs Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation(PMDC)ML- 53(1206)3053.65 Acres situated near Shahrig District Hamai.
6 Messrs Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation(PMDC)ML- 53(1208)1242.07 Acres situated near Shahrig District Harnai.
7 Messrs Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation(PMDC)ML- 53(1218)935.94 Acres situated near Shahrig District Keeping in view the interest of public and to avoid law and order situation the respective areas in 'possession of sublities [sic] is assigned to the Raising Contractors who have invested millions of rupees for the development and extraction of coal and also installed heavy mining machinery in their awarded areas in the site. It is further added that the Raising Contractors of M/S PMDC are advised to obtain Raising and Randaries challans from the Department of Mines and Mineral and deposit dues/royalty as prescribed under Balochistan Mineral Rules, 2002 in the office of the Licensing Authority till further orders. Receipt of this. Notification be acknowledged.
DIRECTOR GENERAL, MINES AND MINERALS BALOCHISTAN"
2. The following prayers have been made in this petition:--
(a) To declare that show cause notice issued by respondent No.1 dated: 28-4-2011 is not in consonance with Rule 57 of Balochistan Mineral Rules, 2002.
(b) To declare that a raising contracts cannot be declared as subletting subject to provision of explanation provided in rule 64(6) of Balochistan Mineral Rules 2002.
(c) To declare that the manner and procedure adopted by official respondent being in league with private respondents is discriminative in nature, thus, is ab initio void.
(d) That to direct the official respondents to adhere the Balochistan Minerals Rules 2002, keeping in view the protection of fundamental rights as protected under Constitution of Pakistan.
(e) To declare that cancellation of mining lease of body corporate subject to Rule 47 of Balochistan Mineral Rules, 2002 cannot be awarded/assigned to the individual contractors under the garb of law and order situation.
(f) To declare that under the garb of Balochistan Mineral Rules, 2002, Articles 4, 18 and 173 of the Constitution of Pakistan cannot be violated, therefore impugned notification is ab-initio void.
(g) To direct the official respondents to refrain from depriving the employees of corporation from their livelihood, in view of their employment under the garb of ulterior motives and political obiects.
(h) Any other relief which may deem fit and proper, may also be awarded."
3. Mr. Kamran Mulakhail, the learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that the petitioner was set up pursuant to the West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation (Transfer of Projects and Companies) Act, 1974 and is a corporation wholly owned by the Government of Pakistan. The petitioner carries out mining operations in Balochistan, in respect of the seven mining leases in the area of Degari, Sor-range and Sharigh. He stated that the petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 25th April, 2011, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner had sublet "areas for extracting of coal". Reply dated 5th May, 2011 to the said show cause notice was submitted within the stipulated period, and as nothing further was heard from the respondent No.1 it was presumed that the reply of the petitioner was to the satisfaction of the respondent No.1. However, out of the blue the impugned Notification dated 9th December, 2011 was issued, facsimile whereof was sent to the petitioner. He stated that the respondent No.1 in purported exercise of the powers under Rule 64 (6) of the Balochistan Mineral Rules 2002 (hereinafter "the Rules") cancelled with immediate effect the mining leases of the petitioner as mentioned therein. The said Rules 64(6) imposes restriction on subletting of a mine, however, the learned counsel stated that petitioner did not sublet its mines, and relied upon the 'Explanationto the said Rule 64(6). He further states that the impugned Notification is contradictory as it cancels the mining leases of the petitioner, but at the same time states that "the respective areas in possession of sublities [sic] is assigned to the Raising Contractors" and as such that the Notification on the face of it is mala fide and issued for ulterior motives, as it seeks to award the mines which fall within the different Mining Leases which have been worked by the petitioner and its employees for the last about 30 years. Learned counsel further stated that the Raising Contractors extraction of coal is derived from the Mining Leases held by the petitioner and if the same are cancelled then the Raising Contractors cannot possibly continue to work the mines. The action of the respondent No.1, by not permitting the petitioner to continue with its mining operations, according to Mr. Kamran Mulakhail, will cripple the business of the petitioner and render about 400 persons out of work.
4. That, the admitted facts of the case are that a show cause notice was issued by the respondent No.1 on 11th August, 2009 to the petitioner which was replied to by the petitioner on 19th August, 2009; nothing further happened. Another show cause notice was issued fifteen months thereafter on 3rd November, 2010 by respondent No.1, which Inspector of Mines, which was replied by the petitioner on 21st January, 2011. The respondent No.1 issued another show cause notice dated 25th April, 2011 to the petitioner; which was replied by the petitioner on 5th May, 2011. However, no hearing pursuant to any of the notices took place nor was the petitioner provided an opportunity of a hearing and the matter lay dormant till coincidentally Mr. Muhammad Umar Gorgaij's request was received by respondent No.1.
5. That at the relevant time Mr. Muhammad Umar Gorgaij was a Federal Minister; he addressed letter dated 13th October, 2011 to the Prime Minister of Pakistan, reproduced hereunder:-- "The Honourable Prime Minister of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Islamabad.
Subject: REQUEST FOR THE AWARD OF CONTRACT OF, COAL MINES AT, SOORANG (TUNNEL) WITH MACHANERY [sic] AT BALOCHISTAN, ON NET PROFIT BASIS.
Respected Sir, I hope a letter of mine will find you in the best of your health and spirits. Sardar Mohammad Umar Gorgaij and Mir Moula Bux S/o Mohammad Siddique, intend to work in Coals Mines sector in Balochistan and request you for award of contract of Coal Mines at Soorange (Tunnel) Balochistan with machinery the production of Coals on net profit basis.
(2) I shall be grateful if your goodself is pass order to the Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation, Head Office Islamabad for the award of contract of Coal Mines at Soorange, Balochistan, on net profit basis.
With best regards, Yours Sincerely, (SARDAR MOHAMMAD UMAR GORGAIJ)
Federal Minister"
The letter was written on the official Government of Pakistan, Minsitry of Postal Services's stationery and was signed by Mr. Gorgaij as 'Federal Minister'. Through the letter Mr. Gorgaij wanted the Prime Minister of Pakistan to prevail upon a wholly owned Government of Pakistan corporation (petitioner) to enter into a contract with Mr. Gorgaij for a particular area of the petitioner's mine (Tunnel) for extracting coal on net profit basis. Such contracts in the trade are the impugned Notification that prompted the respondent No.1 to cancel the petitioner's Mining Leases.
6. The Prime Minister Secretariat vide letter dated 21st October, 2011 forwarded the request of Mr. Gorgaij to the Government of Balochistan, "to take further necessary action in the matter and intimate the progress to this Secretariat at the earliest." The letter was titled "Immediate". The Planning and Development Department of the Government of Balochistan, wrote letter dated 21st November, 2011 to the Secretary, Mines and Minerals Development Department (respondent No.2), which inter alia stated that:-- "It is requested that as directed by the Federal Government kindly forward the requisite report on the issue to this Department on priority basis at least within 3 day, for onward submission to the Prime Minister's Secretariat, Islamabad."
That the respondent No.2 vide letter dated 23rd November, 2011 wrote to respondent No.1 and called for a detailed report on the subject, "for onward submission to the quarter concerned". Respondent No.1 vide its letter dated 29th November, 2011 addressed to respondent No.2 stated that the petitioner had been granted mining lease for coal over an area of 1674.151 acres, situated near Sorrange, district Quetta on 20th September, 2008 for a period of thirty years and that the respondent No.1, "can not ask to any of their concessionaire for the award of contract of coal mines on net profit basis".
7. That vide order dated 21st March, 2012 we had directed respondents Nos.1 and 2 to be present along with the original file(s), which we examined to determine the reason that prompted respondent No.1 to issue the impugned Notification. The file revealed a note dated 29th November, 2011, which read, "regarding the application of Mr. Umer Gorgaij MNA Balochistan for award of contract of coal mines Sorrange (Tunnel) of Messrs PMDC." This note preceded the note which approved the cancellation of the petitioner's leases. In view of the facts that had emerged and as Mr. Gorgaij may be affected by the judgment of this court notice was issued to him; Mr. Muhammad Riaz Ahmed. Advocate filed vakalatnama on his behalf. We also issued notice to the National Accountability Bureau ("NAB") to check if Mr. Gorgaij, in his capacity as a Federal Minister, had violated any of the provisions of the.National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999.
8. That the next noting on the abovementioned official file of the department is reproduced hereunder:-- "PUC Received vide page-97 to 251/C.
Association, Quetta along with copies of the Agreements and Awarded plans executed between them and M/S Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation. From the perusal of said agreements and plans and request of the Association, it seems that the Firm M/S. Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation (PMDC) has sublet their areas/projects in Sorrange, Degari and Sharigh to the Raising Contractors. It is a violation of rule-64(6) Balochistan Mineral Rules, 2002, therefore, if approved and as per instructions, fair cancellation notification in respect of all mining lease granted to M/S PMDC in Sorrange, Degari and Sharigh, placed below for approval/signature please."
Sd: C. Operator.
Sd: AD (C) and DG MM "As per verbal instruction of competent Authority the cancellation has been signed. Pl. Issue."
Sd: Director (Coal).
9. Mr. Shai Haq Baloch, learned Assistant Advocate General ("AAG"), opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner has an alternate remedy of appeal under Rule 70 of the Balochistan Mineral Rules, 2002, which he did not avail and therefore, the case should be remanded to respondent No.2 and it be decided in accordance with law. He further stated that the official respondents did not show any favour to Mr. Gorgaij.
10. Mr. Kamran Mulakhail, Advocate, in answer to the learned A.A.-G's legal objection about maintainability of the petition stated that the remedy of appeal under Rule 70 of the Rules was neither adequate nor effective. He stated that the respondent No.1 by one stroke of the pen had crippled the entire business of the petitioner. The petitioner held valuable mining leases which were cancelled without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing; in contravention of the principle enshrined in the jurisprudence of Pakistan, and which has now been specifically incorporated as a fundamental right under Article 10A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan ("the Constitution"). He stated that there are two aspects to the impugned Notification, one was the cancellation of the mining leases, and the second was the simultaneous assignment thereof to the Raising Contractors for which the petitioner had no remedy. The petitioner's learned counsel further stated that on the face of it the impugned Notification was contrary to the very Rules that had been pressed into service for their cancellation as the mining leases held by the petitioner could not be assigned to the Raising petitioner may have been able to avail of the remedy of appeal, but since the same mining leases of the petitioner had also been assigned to the Raising Contractors the petitioner was effectively denied the right of appeal. He further stated that the Raising Contractors would be working the petitioner's mines and may be also creating third party rights whilst the appeal was heard. For the sake of argument, but without conceding, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that, if the petitioner was doing something illegal the same was with the full participation of the Raising Contractors, but whilst the petitioner has been penalized the Raising Contractors have been rewarded with the mines held by the petitioner under various leases. Reliance was also placed upon the following cases:-
(1) Murree Brewery Co. Ltd. v. Pakistan, PLD 1972 Supreme Court 279
(2) Collector of Customs v. S.M. Ahmad & Co., 1999 SCM R 138
(3) Liaqat Ali Khan v. District Returning Officer, 2002 SCM R 1632
(4) Hydri Ship Breaking Industries Ltd. v. Sindh Government, 2007 M LD 770
(5) Muslimabad Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Siddiqa Faiz, PLD 2008 Supreme Court 135
(6) Muhammad Abbasi v. S.H.O., PLD 2010 Supreme Court 969
11. Mr. Baz Muhammad Kakar, Mr. Hadi Shakil Ahmed, Ms.Tehmina Samad, Mr. Shah Rasool, Mr. Abdul Sattar Kakar and Mr.Naseebullah Tareen, Advocates, represented the Raising Contractors, who were the beneficiaries of impugned Notification. They stated that the Raising Contractors are not subletees in terms of Rule 64 (6) of the Rules and supported the impugned Notification. Mr. Muhammad Riaz Ahmed, Advocate for Mr. Gorgaij stated his client was not arrayed as a respondent and that he had no power to influence the Federal Government, the petitioner or the Provincial Government. He further stated, that Mr. Gorgaij had simply submitted a request to the Prime Minister as a citizen of Pakistan and the use of official stationery was an error of judgment, and that the Prime Minister's Secretariat simply forwarded Mr. Gorgaij's request to the Government of Balochistan, which had in turn forwarded the same to the department and that there was no mens rea in the actions of Mr. Gorgaij and as Mr. Gorgaij was Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 ("NAB Ordinance"). Mr. Afzal Jami, the Deputy Prosecutor General NAB, stated that the application of Mr.Gorgaij was not fruitful therefore the concerned authorities do not want to proceed against Mr. Gorgaij under the NAB Ordinance.
12. Mr. Sultan Muhammad Khan, General Secretary Pakistan Central Mines Labour Federation and Mr. Bakht Nawab, President Balochistan National Mines Workers Union had submitted applications (respectively C.M.As. Nos.527/2012 and 1104/2012) seeking to be joined as parties to safeguard the interest of the mine workers. Their applications were granted vide orders dated 21st March, 2012 and 28th August, 2012 and they were arrayed as respondents Nos.139 and 141 respectively. The representatives of the said Unions stated that the entire coal mining industry has been developed by the tireless effort of miners, many of whom were working in the mines of petitioner. The interest of the miners requires that the applicable rules are strictly enforced. They stated that the petitioner is a relatively reputable employer, of which there aren't many, and it is in the interest of miners that the mining leases of the petitioner are not assigned either to the Raising Contractors or to any other private person. They stated that awarding, contracts to Raising Contractors is against the interest of the miners and that generally the Raising Contractors do not abide by the laws in pace for the protection of miners. They alleged that Mr. Gorgaij and others in government have their eyes on the mines and mining leases of the petitioner and the respondent No.1 is facilitating them. They stated that the petitioner should itself operate its mines and not through Raising Contractors.
13. That we first attend to the objection about the maintainability of this petition. In the Murree Brewery case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court whilst considering Article 98 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1962 (similar to Article 199 of the Constitution) referred to the case of Lt. Col. Nawabzada Muhammad Arnir Khan v. Controller of State Duty (PLD 1961 SC 119, at page 287) held:-- "That the rule that the High Court will not entertain a writ petition when other appropriate remedy is yet available is not a rule of law barring jurisdiction but a rule by which the Court regulates its jurisdiction. It was further observed that one of the well recognized exceptions to the general rule is a case where an order is attacked on the ground that it was wholly without authority."
In the case of Collector of Customs (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held (at page 142), that:-- As regards the maintainability of writ petition in the presence of alternate remedy, it is a settled proposition of law that it is no bar if such remedy is only illusory in nature, as observed in Gulistan Textile Mills Ltd. v. Pakistan (1983 CLC 1474)."
In the case of Muslimabad Cooperative Housing Society (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the Murree Brewery case stating (at page 139), that:-- "It has been held therein that the High Court will not entertain a writ petition when other appropriate remedy is yet available is not a rule of law barring jurisdiction but a rule by which the Court regulates its jurisdiction. When a statutory functionary acts mala fide or in a partial, unjust and oppressive manner, the High Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction has power to grant relief to the aggrieved party."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liaqat Ali Khan (supra) held (at pages 1643 and 1644), that: "It is settled law that if a wrong done by a public functionary to a person cannot be undone through an ordinary remedy, the extraordinary remedy of writ petition can be invoked."
In Hydri Ship Breaking Industries (supra) a Divisional Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh held (at page 787), that: "The mere availability of an alternate remedy does not debar the High Court from exercising such jurisdiction. But as observed by Dorab. Patel, J. In 1980 CLC 412 (Hassan All v. Muhammad Ahsan Baloch) the question whether a writ should be entertained when an alternate remedy is always one within the discretion of the Court. In cases of total lack or absence of jurisdiction of authority, or apparent excess of jurisdiction, the Courts in general would not hesitate much in entertaining a constitutional petition although an alternate remedy may well be available. In other cases, the Courts would generally direct the party to avail and exhaust the alternate remedies available first before entertaining the writ if in the opinion of the Courts the alternate remedy is an adequate remedy."
"In taking a decision whether the alternate remedy in a given case is adequate or not to enable the High Court to take the further decision relating to entertaining the constitutional petition, the Court, in the background of the particular facts of the case before it, considers several factors. The question of weed and expense of the alternate remedy may be considered circumstances of the case, the alternate remedy or the writ would be the appropriate remedy can also be a pertinent consideration."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of Muhammad Abbasi (supra) (respectively at pages 973 and 974) that:- "In our view where alternate remedy is more convenient, beneficial and likely to set the controversy at naught completely, jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be exercised."
"It is however to be kept in view that 'where impugned action or order is challenged on the ground of its being wholly without lawful authority, completely lacking authority for adjudication; proved mala fides patent flouting of law, by conducting in an oppressive, capricious or unjust manner; the . Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court can be invoked even directly without resorting to alternate remedy available to the petitioner '. Atta Muhammad v. Assistant Political Agent (PLD 1990 Quetta 30). The words "adequate remedy" cannot be an efficacious, convenient, beneficial, effective and speedy remedy. It should be equally inexpensive and expeditious. To effectively bar the jurisdiction of the High Court under this Article the remedy available under the law must be able to accomplish the same purpose which is sought to be achieved through a petition under Art.199."
14. That, the respondent No.1 admittedly did not accord the petitioner an opportunity of a hearing and proceeded to cancel seven mining leases of the petitioner, which the petitioner had held for decades. Learned A.A.-G. Has not stated a single word necessitating the taking of this extreme measure without hearing the petitioner. The procedure for cancellation of mineral titles and concessions is provided in Rule 57 of the Rules, which procedure was not followed by respondent No. 1.
15. That, the impugned Notification also assigned the area of the leases that were being worked by the Raising Contractors to them. How this has been done has not been explained either by the respondent No.1, by the learned A.A.-G. Nor by the learned counsel for the Raising Contractors. The purported assignment was also one without ascertaining the respective areas in possession of the Raising Contractors and without following the Rules. The impugned Notification issued by respondent No.1 states that the said areas have been "assigned to the Raising Contractors." The process of assignment is initiated by the assignor, which in this case would he the netitioner. The prescrihed Form 'Kin in this regard must contain and the application is to be submitted by the assignor. Admittedly, the petitioner had not submitted any application for the assignment of any of its leases to any of the Raising Contractors. Furthermore, none of the stipulated requirements contained in Form 'Kand Rule 64 were complied with, nor the applicable fee (prescribed in the First Schedule of the Rules) paid, but still the respondent No.1 arbitrarily assigned the valuable mining leases of the petitioner to the Raising Contractors. The respondent No.1 had no jurisdiction under the Rules to arbitrarily assign the mining leases of the petitioner. In doing so the respondent No.1 committed a blatant illegality.
16. That, in the abovementioned circumstances it was not necessary for the petitioner to have first filed an appeal under Rule 70 of the Rules. We are fortified in our view by the ratio decidendi of the cited precedents. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when the impugned action is wholly without authority an aggrieved person can approach the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. No legal authority vested in the respondent No.1 enabling him to award the mining leases of the petitioner directly to the Raising Contractors. We also find that the respondent No.1, a statutory functionary, acted in a mala fide, unjust and oppressive manner, and under such circumstance, in the words of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, "the High Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction has power to grant relief to the aggrieved party." Therefore, inter alia for such reasons the objection regarding the maintainability of this petition, without having first filed an appeal under Rule 70, are rejected and the petition is found to be maintainable.
17. That, the respondent No.1 whose duty is to ensure compliance with the Rules lost sight thereof.
The scope and width of the impugned Notification is completely beyond the parameters of the Rules. We also cannot be unmindful of the fact that the respondent No.1 did not provide E the petitioner with an opportunity of a hearing and with one stroke of the pen cancelled the petitioner's seven mining leases, which he then, purportedly "assigned to the Raising Contractors". In doing so the respondent No.1 contravened the Rules and the Constitution.
18. That it is a well settled principle of our jurisprudence that if it is being contemplated to pass an order against a person he should first be provided with an opportunity of a hearing. In this case the petitioner was a holder of valuable mining leases, which it had for decades, therefore the petitioner should have been granted a personal hearing, but unfortunately this was not done. Article 10A of the Constitution grants to a person the entitlement to a fair trial and due process. The respondent passing an adverse order against it, but this was not done. The impugned Notification on this score alone needs to be set aside.
19. That, as regards the contention (and prayer) of the petitioner that by executing contracts with the Raising Contractors it was not violating Rule 64(6) of the Rules such declaration cannot be granted since this matter has not been first determined by the respondents Nos.1 and/or 2. It is however incumbent on the petitioner to ensure compliance with the said provision; and if the respondent No.1 considers that the petitioners have contravened sub-rule (6) of Rule 64, as alleged, the respondent No.1 should, after issuance of show cause notice and after according it an opportunity of hearing, proceed in accordance with the Rules.
20. We may observe that the mining industry is probably the largest industry in Balochistan and employs many people. The fact that the mining industry is one of the few industries in the province, it was expected that the Government of Balochistan would support it, rather than subject it to whimsical and draconian action, like the impugned Notification of respondent No.
1. If the respondent No.1 himself fails to act in compliance with the Rules it shatters the confidence of the owners and also of the miners. Respondent No. 1 also overlooked a very important and crucial factor, which is the safety of workers. The coal mining industry is, quite literally, built upon the sweat and toil of mineworkers, who, in the case of coal-mining, go deep into the earth to extract coal. We can take judicial notice of the fact that recently far too many accidents and deaths have occurred in the coal-mining industry of Balochistan. Most accidents can be avoided if applicable laws are enforced and miners are provided even rudimentary training. The mineworkers, the most vulnerable sector of the industry, are left at the mercy of an apathetic monitoring regime and unscrupulous employers. Safe mining practices are sacrificed for deriving additional profits. The concerned officers and Government of Balochistan must keep the safety of miners foremost and ensure that the applicable law and rules are followed with regard to safe- mining practices.
21. The respondent No.1 purportedly assigned the mining leases in favour of the raising contractors but without ensuring that they were compliant with the applicable mining safety laws and rules or even had the capacity in this regard. Moreover, without a clear demarcation of the respective areas being worked by the different Raising Contractors it would not be possible to affix responsibility on anyone if an unfortunate accident was to take place. The respondent No.1 whilst purportedly assigning the petitioner's mining leases to the Raising Contractors did had become parties to this petition, were therefore rightly concerned; they stated that the interest of the workers lies in the mines continuing to be under the control and supervision of the petitioner, a wholly owned Government corporation.
22. We must also express our dismay with the conduct of Mr. Umar Gorgaij, who at the relevant time was serving as a Federal Minister. He attempted to compel a Government owned corporation to enter into an agreement with him. He could not use his position as a Federal Minister to Write to the Prime Minister, but he did. He misused his official position. The oath taken by a Federal Minister inter alia states, That I will not allow my personal interest to influence my official conduct or my official decisions." Mr. Gorgaij had no business, whilst serving as a Federal Minister in the Federal Cabinet, to strike business deals; however, he not only attempted to do so but sought to influence the decision making process in his favour by writing to the Prime Minister. He overlooked the fact that fundamental responsibility of the peoplesrepresentatives is to serve the people and their interest, not one's own. Surprisingly, the Prime Minister's Secretariat deemed it fit to send Mr.Gorgaij's application for consideration of the Government of Balochistan. The Prime Minister's Secretariat too acted contrary to the public interest and its mandate by pursuing the personal request of Mr.Gorgaij. One expected that the Prime Minister of Pakistan would admonish his Minister, but instead he indulged him. The Government of Balochistan also demonstrated a supple moral disposition and proceeded with remarkable alacrity to appease the whims of a Federal Minister,
23. That for the reasons stated hereinabove we declare the impugned Notification No.ML- 53(1156)/5760-70 dated 9th December, 2011 to be void ab initio, of no legal effect, ultra vires the Rules and the Constitution; and consequently set it aside and allow the petition to such extent with costs in the sum of Rs.30,000 (Rupees thirty thousand only) to be paid by the Government of Balochistan to the petitioner. Since the Pakistan Central Mines Labour Federation and Balochistan National Mines Workers Union came forward to protect the interests of mineworkers they too need to be compensated, therefore, the Government of Balochistan pay to each of them an amount of Rs.10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only). We also direct the Government of Balochistan to give due consideration to the safety of miners and to ensure that the applicable law and rules are followed with regard to safe-mining practices.