1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-On the 9th February 1962, the President of Pakistan through the Director- General, Bureau of Mineral Resources, granted to the petitioner prospecting licence for excavating Barytes over ran area of 316 acres of lane situated in Khuzdar Tehsil, District Kalat under the Pakistan Mining Concession Rules, 1960, initially for a period of one year. It was extended to another year and was to expire on the 8th February 1964. On the 4th May 1965, the petitioner was granted under the same rules a mining lease for excavating Barytes over the same area by the Director, Directorate of Mineral Development, Government of West Pakistan, Lahore, for a period of five years with effect from the 9th February 1964. The period of lease was later extended from five to thirty years by a sub--sequent order dated the 10th July 1965. It is alleged that the petitioner performed his part 'of the lease by carrying out the necessary preliminaries including the development of a mine, con--struction of roads, purchase of vehicles, engagement of labour etc., at a huge cost and started excavating the mineral of the Barytes and transported it from the mine to Karachi. He was also paying the dues of the Government, such as dead-rent, royalty and other charges. It is alleged that during the operation of the mine, the petitioner had to face numerous unforeseen handicaps.
2. Local tribes of Mengals did not permit the petitioner to continue the operation of the mine and resorted to violence and looting. The lawlessness prevailed in the area for sometime and the Government had to deploy escort of its own for their own trans--portation: In spite of these difficulties, the petitioner till the beginning of 1969, continued the mining operation. In view of the various handicaps with which the petitioner was confronted and the political atmosphere created by the success of the National Awami Party in the last general elections, the petitioner was com-- pelled to seek permission from respondent No. 1 to assign the lease in favour of M/s. Pakistan Petroleum Limited.
3. On the 4th July 1972, respondent No. 1 issued notice to the petitioner accusing him of the suspension of mining operation and thus violating the provisions of rule 47 of the Baluchistan Mining Concession Rules, 1970, to show cause as to why his lease should not be cancelled. On the 14th July 1972, the petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid notice explaining the circumstances in which he had been compelled to suspend the excavation of the mineral and to seek permission for the assignment of the lease in favour of M/s. Pakistan Petroleum Limited without giving personal hearing to the petitioner, cancelled the lease of the petitioner by order dated the 5th August 1972, at the instance of Mr. Ahmad Nawaz Bugti the then Minister for Industries. The petitioner challenged this order in appeal under rule 71 of the Baluchistan Mining Concession Rules, 1970 which is still pending. Thereafter the petitioner challenged the order of cancellation in the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, by filing the Constitutional Petition No. 62 of 1972. This petition was dismissed by the High Court in limine on the 8th February 1973. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
4. Shaikh Shaukat Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged only one point in support of the petition. He has con--tended that under rule 47(b) of the Baluchistan Mining Concession Rules, 1970, the only penalty for not conforming to the provisions of exploitation scheme is a penalty of Rs.
5. 5,000. It is only when the defects or irregularities are not removed within a period of 30 days of this penalty, the lease can be terminated. The con--tention of the learned counsel is not well founded.
6. The relevant rules applicable to the present case are rules 47(a) and 96(1)(iv) of the Baluchistan Mining Concession Rules, 1970. According to rule 47(a), the lessee is to commence operations according to the approved exploitation scheme within six months) from the date of the grant of mining lease and shall thereafter carry them out effectually in a proper skilful and workmanlike manner and shall not depillar or abandon the mine without obtaining the prior approval of the licensing authority. Under rule 96(i)(iv), the violation of rule 47 (Commencement of opera--tions), the penalty may extend to Rs. 3,000 or cancellation of the lease.
7. In the light of the above Rules, it is quite clear that respon--dent No. 1 was competent to cancel the lease of the petitioner. A show-cause notice was given to the petitioner. He was asked to furnish his explanation. He furnished his explanation and thereafter the lease was cancelled. It is thus quite clear that res--pondent No. 1 acted according to the principles of natural justice. There is no force in the petition. The petition is dismissed.