1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--This appeal, is directed against the judgment, dated 15-7-1981 of the Baluchistan High Court, is through leave of this Court, which was granted to examine the question; whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the appellate authority concerned violated principles of natural justice when allowing the respondents' appeal by order, dated 15-8- 1979 without hearing the appellant.
2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the appeal are as follows: Abdul Qadir appellant made an application for prospecting licence for an area nearly of 500 Acres in District Kalat in February, 1978. This area included about 260 Acres for which earlier a prospecting licence had been granted to third respondent Sardar Zada Dost Muhammad, but the same was cancelled in July, 1976 by the Joint Director Mineral Development. The applicant's request for the licence came up for consideration before a Mining Committee which gave a decision in his favour on 13-3-1979. It is contended by the learned counsel that although technically speaking this was not a final decision and .a further formality had to be gone through, but, nothing substantial was further to be done in so far as the practical aspect of the consideration of his application was concerned. During the pendency, of the appellant's application when it had not yet been considered by the Mining Committee the third respondent made an application in April, 1978 for restoration of his licence which stood cancelled since July, 1976. A similar application was made in May, 1978 in response whereof he was informed that he may pursue a remedy by filing an appeal.
3. Accordingly a formal appeal having been filed, it was allowed on 15th August, 1979 by the first respondent-Secretary Industries, Government of Baluchistan. He restored the prospecting licence of the third respondent regarding the area of about 250 Acres, which, as earlier noted was included in the application of the appellant which had already been favourably considered by the Mining Committee in its recommendation, dated 13-3-1979.
4. The appellant feeling aggrieved by the order, dated 15-8-1979 moved a petition in the Baluchistan High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction mainly on the ground; that notwithstanding that the appellant's application had been favourably considered and disposed of by the Mining Committee before the impugned appellate order was passed in favour of respondent No. 3, he was not afforded an opportunity of hearing and accordingly the said appellate order was without lawful authority.
5. In an elaborate discussion about the question as to whether the appellant was an aggrieved person so as to agitate the matter in the Constitutional jurisdiction, the decision was rendered against him by the High Court. Accordingly without examining the merits, the appellant's petition was dismissed.
6. After some arguments the learned counsel for the appellant and the third respondent as also the learned Assistant Advocate General representing the first and second respondents, agreed that while respondent No.3 should have been afforded opportunity of hearing by the Mining Committee before it disposed of the appellants application on 13-3-1979, the Secretary Industries (respondent No.1) should have afforded opportunity of hearing to the appellant when disposing of the appeal of respondent No.3. That being so, they further agreed to a consent order to be passed namely that the appeal be allowed and the entire case be sent to the respondent No. 1-Secretary Industries, who shall ignore the order passed by him on 15-8-1979 and decide the appeal of respondent No.3 afresh after affording opportunity of hearing, both to the appellants as well as the said respondent No.3.
7. We order accordingly. The parties shall bear their own costs.