SHAUKAT ALI RAKHSHANI, J. The petitioner has brought before us the captioned constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("Constitution"), seeking annulment of the impugned order dated 18.12.2018, passed by Director General Mines and Minerals ("DG Mines and Minerals') Government of Balochistan ("GoB")
(respondent No.2), whereby the Mining Lease ("ML") No. ML-53(1778)/4607-14 dated 24.06.2014 was cancelled and impugned order dated 19.11.2022 rendered by Secretary Mines GoB (respondent No.1), whereby his appeal was dismissed.
2. Relevant facts of the instant case are that the petitioner was granted a Prospecting License ("PL") over an area of 1239.66 acres situated near Habib Kila District, Duki for exploitation of coal, following issuance of allotment letter bearing No.PL-31(4517)/815-24 dated 09.02.2008 and work order bearing No.PL-31(4517)/2538-44 dated 28.03.2008 measuring an area of 1239.66 acres, which was subsequently converted into ML bearing No. ML-53(1778)/4607-14 dated 24.06.2014 over an area of 999.16 acres for a period of 20 years, w.e.f. 09.02.2008, however later on vide notification No. ML-53(1778)/3749-54 dated 18.12.2018, the, ML of the petitioner was cancelled by respondent No.2 for non-compliance of the codal formalities, which order was assailed in appeal by the petitioner before the respondent No.1, who after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal, hence this petition.
3. In response to the notices issued by this Court, learned AAG appeared.
4. Heard. Record pondered upon with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AAG. The impugned order dated 18.12.2018 whereby the ML bearing No. ML- 53(1778)/4607-14 A granted to the petitioner was cancelled on account of non-submission of lease deed, exploration scheme and demarcation certificate within time, does not reflect that before cancellation any notice was issued or any order of satisfaction under clause (2) of Rule 46 of Balochistan Mineral Rules of 2002 ("Rules of 2002") was drawn. For ease of reference, clause (2) of Rule ibid is reproduce hereunder; "(2) If the agreement in case of L.S.M and the lease deed in case of Small Scale Mining is not executed within three months of the communication of the approval of the application for a mining lease and the presentation of the mineral agreement/lease deed for signature, the right of the applicant to such lease shall be deemed to have lapsed unless the licensing authority is satisfied that the delay in execution was not caused by the applicant or was due to circumstances beyond the applicant's control."
[Emphasis supplied]
5. Clause (2) of Rule 46 of Rules of 2002 clearly manifest that the licensing Authority has to satisfy itself that the delay in execution was neither caused by the applicant nor was due to the circumstances beyond the control of the applicant, which Inquiry does not seem to have taken place before cancellation of ML, which not only offends the provision ibid, but the principle "Audi Alteram partem" as well, because the petitioner has not been provided with an opportunity of hearing by respondent No.2 before cancellation of his ML.
Apart from that, the Order impugned has also been rendered in utter violation of Article 10-A of the Constitution, which cannot in any way be allowed to hold field as the impugned notification of cancellation of ML is unsustainable for being perverse.
Similarly, respondent No.1 being the appellate authority also did not consider such aspect of the matter and endorsed the notification of cancellation of ML dated 18.12.2018, through a non- speaking order by dismissing the appeal, which has made the same illegal and perverse, thus we are left with no other option but to intervene by invoking-jurisdiction under Article 199 of Constitution.
6. In view of the above, the instant petition is partly allowed, the impugned notification dated 18.12.2018 rendered by respondent No.2 and order dated 19.11.2022 penned by respondent No.1 are declared null and void, without any legal effect and the case is remitted to the respondent No.2 to afford opportunity of hearing to the parties at us and decide the case on merits at the earliest.