MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.---This is a writ petition, whereby, petitioner has sought the following remedies:- "In the light of the above, it is most respectfully prayed that the respondent department be directed to recall and cancel the impugned letters, orders/ decisions cancelling the mining leases of the petitioner.
It further prayed that the respondents be directed to forward/extend the benefit of Rule 4 read with Rule 43(4) of the MCR 2003 to the petitioner and the existing mining leases be extended accordingly.
It is further prayed that pending the instant writ petition, the respondents be restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from the mines as well as allow the petitioner to carry out its work and accept all the rents, royalty, taxes, levies etc. Any other relief, which this Honourable Court, deems fit and proper in the circumstances, also be granted."
2. Admittedly, petitioner obtained 8 leases of mining contracts in different parts of Gilgit-Baltistan in the year 1995. The first lease contract was arrived at between parties on 01-01-1995, with expiry date of 01-01-2015. Likewise, the second and third lease contracts were arrived at on 07-06-1995, with expiry date of 07-06-2015. The contract dates and expiry dates on rest of the lease contracts is not disputed between the parties. For ready reference, I reproduce the two orders/letters, whereby, the suit leases were cancelled on 22-01-2014 and 18-11-2014 respectively:-- GOVERNMENT OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN GILGIT-BALTISTAN DIRECTORATE Mines & Minerals Department No, M&M-1(07)/2014 Gilgit, the dated 22nd January, 2014.
To, M/S MEFT, H#24, Strt#88, Embassy Road, Sector G-6/3 Islamabad. SUB: CANCELLATION OF MINING LEASES.
I am directed to refer to above cited subject and to say that you are completely failed to submit quarterly and annually reports of your Mining Leases according to Mining Concession Rules (MCR), 2003 as well as you are also badly failed to show the progress during the last couple of years and in this connection royalty deposited against the Leases is unsatisfactory in the record of this office, which is clear violation of MCR, 2003.
Therefore, it is informed that your Mining Leases No,ADINAMB-1(145)/95 (Gemstone at Ganish, Hunza), ADINA-MB1(158)195 (Aquamarine at Shah Batot, Haramosh Gilgit), ADINA-MB-1(159)/95 (Ruby Spinal at Hachunder, Hunza), ADINA-MB-1(161)/95 (Emerald at Khaltoro Haramosh, Gilgit), ADINA-MB-1(162)/95 (Ruby at Dorkhan, Hunza), ADINA-MB1(163)/95 (Tourmaline at Istak Nallah, Skardu), and ADINAMB-1(164)/95 (Topaz at Daso, Shiger Skardu) are hereby cancelled due to very poor performance and you have no furthermore right of Mining Leases.
Sd/xxx (MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR) Sr. Mineralogist/Geologist Copy for information:-
1. DS (Staff) to Chief Secretary G.B
2. PS to Secretary Mines & Minerals G.B.
3. PS to Director Mines & Minerals G.B.
GOVERNMENT OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN GILGIT-BALTISTAN DIRECTORATE Mines & Minerals Department No, DTE.M&M-1(7)/2014 Gilgit, the dated 18th November, 2014.
To, M/S M.E.F.T.
Pakistan (PVT.) LTD.
H#24, Strt#88, Embassy Road, Sector G-6/3 Islamabad.
SUB:- CANCELLATION OF MINING LEASES: The undersigned is directed to refer to the subject cited above and to say that you had been granted nine (09) Nos. Mining Leases (08) eight Nos. Mining Leases have been cancelled due to poor performance/production from the date of grant to till date according to Mining Concession Rules (MCR), 2003. One (01) No, Mining Lease has been expired on 2nd August, 2014 and you have not applied for extension well in time as per MCR, 2003.
Therefore, you are requested to not furnish so called, monthly progress report to this office as you have no right of the above mentioned nine (09) Nos. Mining Leases because your all Mining Leases have been cancelled due to poor performance/ production.
Sd/xxx (ANWAR ALI) Director Mines & Minerals Gilgit-Baltistan Copy for information:-DS (Staff) to Chief Secretary G.B. i. PS to Secretary Mines and Minerals G.B.
3. We have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate General. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that the impugned orders are wrong in the eye of law and petitioner has every right of extension of suit leases. In the opinion of learned counsel for petitioner, the grounds for cancellation of suit lease agreements are baseless and petitioner has fulfilled all the conditions of suit lease agreements. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General argued that respondents had to cancel the suit lease agreements only in view of the grounds described in the above two suit orders of cancellation of the suit agreements.
4. We have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for parties. The questions debated before us are, whether writ in hand is competent or not? And whether the grounds of cancellation of suit agreements that entailed to the filing of this petition are sufficient for the' suit orders? In this connection, we had to see the grounds of cancellation of suit agreements very minutely. From plain perusal of the grounds of cancellation of the suit agreements, it is very evident that the same could be rebutted through evidence, but petitioners did not file any documentary evidence, showing that the grounds are baseless. It is further noted that the grounds of suit cancellation of leases are based on facts. Moreover, the suit cancellation of mining agreements as well as grant of suit leases of mines, are obviously creating rights and duties between the parties, which we term as contractual liabilities, and to prove or rebut the violation of any contractual liabilities, any, of parties may file a suit. We have further noted that on 03-06-2013, respondents issued notices to the petitioners for appearing before them on 12-06-2013, but petitioner did not appear. Then respondents issued second notice, which was termed as last notice, to the petitioner for appearing before respondents on 12-08-2013. It appears from record that petitioner again turned a deaf to the second notice also. The relevant rules of mining, cited in the petition as well as reply thereof, show that under Rule 5 of the same, petitioner had to file an appeal against the actions of the respondents before the competent authority, but we find no copy of any such appeal. Petitioner termed a letter dated 27-01-2014, addressed to the then Chief Secretary by one Irshad Ullah, as appeal, but we do not feel that the same is any appeal etc.
5. From record, it is clear that the suit leases have been cancelled on 22-01-2014 and 18-11-2014, but petitioner has filed at least 15 letters addressed to the respondent No,2 with similar subject showing the progress of the work on the suit leases. For ready reference, we reproduce one of such letters hereunder:- M.E.F.T. PAKISTAN (PRIVATE) LIMITED January 1, 2015 Director, Minerals and Industries Commerce and Labour, Gilgit- Baltistan.
Dear Sir, May Allah Bless and Protect you and your family.
Please find our monthly report for January 2015.
Reporting Month: January 2015 Situation/Mineral: Aquamarine at Shah Batote Haramosh over an area 1,000 acres Lease No,: Ind/Min 1-(158)/95 dated 07-06-1995 Opening BalanceProduction during the MonthTotal Dispatched Balance Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Comments:-- Because of the security position in the country our foreign associates have not been able to come forward. Even as locals we find the present security situation untenable.
We have compiled the reports on our mines through Canadian Geologists, British and Swiss Geologists, the Frontier Works Organization, and our mining experts at considerable cost.
With affection and all good wishes. Yours sincerely, Sd/xxx (Irshad Ullah Khan)
Rhodes Scholar Chairman It is also interesting that we find copy of the above referred letter in 8 (eight) other similar letters of the petitioner addressed to respondent No,2, issued on 01-12-2014. We further find 15 (fifteen) other letters issued on 02-10-2014 and 01-11-2014, with the similar contents addressed to respondent No,2 by the petitioner. This conduct of the petitioner shows that he did nothing in the suit leases as have averred by the learned Assistant Advocate General in his parawise comments dated 26-05-2015.
6. We have gone through Rule 73 of the Mining Rules, referred in the petition as well as in the reply that empowered the Chief Secretary G.B: for passing the impugned orders.
7. In view of the above, we have come to the conclusion that the petition in hand is not maintainable and is also baseless, therefore, merits dismissal. We, therefore, dismiss the same. This file be consigned to record.