1. ' IMAM ALI G. KAZI, J.---The two petitioners in C.P. No,D-1 of 1991 and C.P. No,D-426 of 1991 are the contenders for obtaining prospecting licence for laterite over an area of 1544 acres near Ongar, District Thatta under the Pakistan Mining Concession Rules, 1960. As the dispute in these two petitions relates to a common piece of land we propose to decide the same by this common judgment.
2. ' Imran Ayub, the petitioner in C.P. No,D-1 of 1991 was allotted prospecting licence for laterite over an area of 1544 acres for 5 years situated near village Ongar in District Thatta on 10-4-1983 by the Director of Industries and Mineral Development, Government of Sindh, on the basis of his application filed on 8-3-1981. An area of 1420 acres out of this area was earlier allotted to Messrs Mehran Rocks by Notification of 11th June, 1976 for a period of 5 years but was subsequently cancelled on 24-5-1980.
3. ' Messrs Mehran Rocks made representations against cancellation of their contract prematurely and also instituted a civil suit. They succeeded in their representation and it was ordered that the lease that was cancelled in their case be restored on their clearance of the Government dues.
4. Ultimately in order to avoid litigation in Department decided to allow 50% of the land to each of the two contenders. A letter was therefore addressed to the petitioners on 18-5-1987 intimating them the decision.
5. ' Imran Ayub, the petitioner in C.P. No,D-1 of 1991 was allotted the area in question on 10-4-1983 and he preferred to enter into correspondence with the Departement to obtain work order in respect of that land and as he became aware of the decision of the Department contained in their letter dated 18-5-1987 filed a Constitutional petition being C.P. No,D-44 of 1987 before this Court. The petition was allowed by the judgment passed on 4-12-1989 wherein it was directed that the Director of Industries and Mineral Development the respondent No,2 herein, shall decide the case afresh after hearing both the petitioners. In spite of the judgment passed by this Court no orders were passed by the Director Industries and Mineral Development, which necessitated the petitioner Imran Ayub to file another petition being C.P. No,D-47 of 1990. This petition too was allowed by the judgment passed on 19-11-1990 directing the respondent No,2 to decide the case of the two petitioners within one month.
6. ' After the direction contained in the judgment passed in C.P. No,D-47 of 1990, the Director Industries and Mineral Development heard both the petitioners and passed two orders on 27th December, 1990 in their cases. In the case of Imran Ayub, petitioner in C.P. No,D-1 of 1991, the Director Industries and Mineral Development, the respondent No,2, concluded that as he failed to furnish mining lease deed duly completed for execution and also failed to communicate acceptance of the terms and conditions of the letter of even number dated 10-4-1980 within the stipulated time offer made to him vide allotment order, dated 10-4-1983 be treated as lapsed in terms of para. 2 of that order and rule 21 of Pakistan Mining Concession Ruels, 1960. In case of petitioner in C.P. No,D-426 of 1991, he came to the conclusion that fresh ground did not exist for restoration of the mining lease and representation made by them were ordered to be filed. It is against these two orders that the two petitioners have respectively filed the present petitions.
7. ' Mr. M.M. Aqil Awan, Advocate for petitioner in C.P. No,D-1 of 1991, contended that the ground indicated in the order passed on 27-12-1990 by the respondent No,2 is not sustainable in the circumstances of the present case as the petitioners had complied with all the requirements incorporated in the allotment order and it was only for the respondent No,2 to have issued work order. He further contended that the petitioner was entitled for grant of work order and the second order whereby lease in respect of 710 acres was restored to respondent No,3 was also passed by him without any jurisdiction. He further stated that it is the respondent No,2 who had for mala fide reasons refused to issue work order and execute a valid lease for no fault on the part of petitioners.
8. ' Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, the Additional Advocate-General, Sindh, pointed out that the lease granted earlier to Messrs Mehran Rocks, the petitioners in C.P. No,D-426 of 1991, was cancelled on expiry of a period of 4 years out of total period of 5 years due to non-payment of Government dues. Such dues remained unpaid and the lease under the rules cannot be restored and a fresh lease cannot be granted to him. While the case of petitioner in C.P. No,D-1 of 1991 allotment has been cancelled due to lapse on the part of petitioner to fulfil the terms and conditions of offer made to him.
9. ' None appeared for Messrs Mehran Rocks as respondent in C.P. No,D-1 of 1991 and as petitioners in C.P. No,D-426 of 1991.
10. ' On examination of the admitted facts of these two cases we find that the petitioner Imran Ayub, was offered lease of an area of 1544 acres by Notification dated 10-4-1983 for a period of 5 years.
11. He remained content with entering into correspondence with the Department till decisive action was actually taken by the Department on 18-5-1987, whereby only half of the area was offered to him. He then filed a Constitutional Petition No,D-44 of 1987 and followed it by filing another petition No,D-47 of 1990. The offer made to him was for a period of 5 years commencing from 10-4-1983 and normally the lease should have expired on 9-4-1988. Out of the total period of 5 years of the proposed lease, the petitioner wasted full 4 years and approached this Court for relief thereafter.
12. Similarly, the petitioners in C.P. No,D-426 of 1991, Messrs Mehran Rocks, having enjoyed lease for 4 years out of the total 5 years committed default in payment of Government dues and on that account his lease was cancelled. In spite of succeeding on their representation whereby higher authorities ordered restoration of lease on payment of Government dues he neglected to pay the same. It may be pointed out here that C.P. No,D-426 of 1991 has been filed through one Nooruddin Mangrio, who was Public Relations Officer of Karachi Telephone Region, a Government servant as the Managing Director of the petitioners.
13. The subject-matter of these two petitions, according to the admitted facts of the two cases concern the contractual relationship between the petitioners and the respondent No,2 where breach of terms and conditions of the contract are alleged and further the period of contract which the petitioner in C.P. No,D-1 of 1991 would have expired in 1988 long before filing of the petition.
14. Due to lapse of time even if petitioner can succeed, the contract in retrospect cannot be restored by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under the Constitution. The petitioners can only seek proper relief by way of filing regular suits claiming damages for breach of terms and conditions to be decided on the basis of proper evidence. But the petitioners in fact have consumed a lot of time and engaged the respondents in the litigation blocking the Government land for a number of years and depriving the State of their legitimate revenue. We find no merit in these two petitions which are dismissed with costs.