1. CHAUDHARY KHALID RASHEED, J. The captioned writ petition has been filed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, whereby, the proceedings of inquiry / investigation initiated by Ehtesab Bureau through Complaint No.221/2007 is solicited to be declared coram-non-judice, void ab initio with further prayer to refrain Ehtesab Bureau from inquiring or filing any reference against the petitioner, officials of Directorate of Mineral Development and father of the petitioner with respect to the allegations contained in the complaint.
2. Detailed facts giving rise to this writ petition are, licensing authority (Director Mineral Resources) vide work order dated 13.12.2006 allowed petitioner for exploration and extraction of dolomite from the area comprising 259.50 acres of land situated at Nela Dandi Tehsil and District Muzaffarabad and petitioner was directed by respondent No.3 to deposit amount for quantity of extracted dolomite at the rate of Rs.6 per ton vide letter dated 11.12.2007. It is averred that after completion of the exploration work the petitioner submitted a report to respondents with an application for grant of mining permit and paid the requisite fee for the same, but was halted by the Licensing Authority due to the fact that upon complaint of respondents Nos.4 and 5, the Ehtesab Bureau initiated some inquiry. It is further averred that on the application maneuvered shown to have been drawn by respondents Nos.4 and 5, Ehtesab Bureau registered a Complaint No.221/2007 and started an inquiry/investigation against the petitioner, the petitioner further claimed in his petition that the proceedings of inquiry / investigation initiated by Ehtesab Bureau is sine lawful authority and same is liable to be quashed.
3. Writ petition was admitted for regular hearing on 06.03.2013. Respondents have filed written statement, wherein, it is claimed that petitioner has got no locus standi to file the instant writ petition, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the exploration license was granted in favour of petitioner for one year, which was expired on 13.12.2017 and no application for renewal of the same was submitted by the petitioner. It is further averred that due to illegal extraction and sale of dolomite caused deprivation of millions of rupees to the Government exchequer and when the illegal act of petitioner came to light, spot inspection was made by the department and notice was also served to the petitioner by the Mineral Department on 12.04.2007, petitioner was directed to pause the illegal sale and extraction. It is claimed that on the complaint, Ehtesab Bureau started inquiry and during inquiry/ investigation petitioner was found involved in illegal extraction of dolomite and refuted the other claims of the petitioner.
4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has reiterated the facts and grounds already narrated in the writ petition and solicited that Ehtesab Bureau started investigation against the petitioner with mala fide intention, whereas, in a open auction petitioner's bid was accepted for lease of extraction of dolomite. He further argued that petitioner performed his functions according to license under the relevant Act and if the petitioner has violated any provision of act or rules, the licensing authority is empowered to take appropriate action, whereas, Ehtesab Bureau has no jurisdiction to initiate inquiry against the petitioner in the offences which are not scheduled offences, hence, the Ehtesab Bureau has initiated inquiry/ investigation against the petitioner with any jurisdiction. The learned Advocates further proceeded that the petitioner is not a public office holder, hence, the investigation started by Ehtesab Bureau is coram non judice and void ab initio. Lastly he prayed for acceptance of the writ petition.
5. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the respondents controverted the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner, and implored that petitioner has no locus standi to file the instant petition but has filed the instant petition just to protect ill gotten gain, therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. He further argued that the exploration license granted in favour of petitioner for one year and after expiry of that period no application for renewal of the same was filed and all the activities and acts done under the garb of expired exploration license were illegal and void. He further argued that on complaint, Ehtesab Bureau started inquiry/ investigation and petitioner was found involved in illegal extraction of dolomite, hence, the respondents are empowered under Section 10 of the Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001 to investigate the matter. He submitted that right of investigation granted by the special law cannot be restrained on the sweet will of the petitioner in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Lastly he prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case with utmost care and cautions.
7. In this case the main stance of the petitioner is that license for exploration and extraction of dolomite was issued under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Regulation of Mines Oil Fields and Mineral Development Federal Control Act and the rules made there under, and any offence under the said Act does not come within the jurisdictional power of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001, thus, the Ehtesab Bureau is not empowered to investigate the matter.
8. Before proceeded further it is pertinent to mention here that section 2(2) of Ehtesab Bureau Act, which is special law, postulates that this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force and Section 3(a) clearly states that it is applicable to all persons of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and as per Section 4(a) accused shall include a person in respect of whom there are reasonable grounds to believe about his involvement in commission of any offence and according to section 4(c) his associate are also included. Section 10 of the Act stated about corruption and corrupt practices by holder of a public office, or any other person, is said to commit or to have committed the offence of corruption and corrupt practices.
9. The referred provisions of the Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001 is sufficient to deny all the claims raised by the petitioner in his petition. Section 11 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001 provides the punishment for a holder of public office or any other person, who has committed the offence of corruption and corrupt practices. The corruption and corrupt practices have been defined in section 10 of the Act. In case of any corruption and corrupt practice the Ehtesab Bureau has got ample jurisdiction to investigate the matter.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not the public office holder, thus, Ehtesab Bureau cannot Investigate him, has no substance. In this regard the learned counsel was confronted with section 10 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001 especially the words "any other person" used in the said section, he frankly conceded the situation and withdrew his argument, thus, this contention of the petitioner need no further deliberation.
11. In this case the matter was under investigation against petitioner, the officers and officials of the Mineral Resources Department but due to status quo order issued by this Court in the captioned writ petition the investigation could not be proceeded. It is well settled precept of law held by the superior Courts that investigation should not be hampered in exercise of writ jurisdiction unless it is proved that the investigation lacks legal efficacy or sine lawful authority. Moreover, the petitioner and officers of Mineral Resources Department have only received notices for investigation and there are plethora of precedents on the point that that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised against a notice because the aggrieved person has an alternate and efficacious remedy for redressal of his grievance i.e. to appear before the .investigating agency and present his view point. The only point which required deliberation of this Court was that whether the Ehtesab Bureau is competent to investigate the matter or not, this question in light of phraseology used in section 10 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001 is answered in affirmative and after that no legal ground for cancellation of impugned proceedings is remaining to be attended.
12. The crux and epitome of the above discussion is that finding no force in this writ petition it is hereby dismissed, with no order as to the costs.