Both the petitioners in this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 have sought a writ/order in the nature of mandamus to the Deputy Director, Mineral Development and Industries Department, Lahore Region Lahore for payment of compensation to them on account of digging sand from their lands and also prayed for setting aside the order of respondent Deputy Director dated 11-10-1992, which reads as under: The Deputy Director, Mineral Development has denied all the allegations levelled in this petition against him and specifically pleaded that under rules 48 and 49 of the Punjab Minor Minerals Concession Rules. 1990 the remedies of appeal and revision before the Director of Industries and Mineral Development, Punjab and before the Secretary, Industries and Mineral Development Punjab, respectively, are available to the petitioners. It has also been stated in the comments that the respondent Deputy Director did not pass any order on 11-10-1992, as alleged by the petitioner, "rather he has conveyed the order of the competent authority (i.e. Licensing Authority) through letter dated 11-10-1992." Comments on paras. Nos. 1 to 3 of the petition axe to the following effect: "(1)Not admitted. The lessee, Mr. Muhammad Tariq Sohail was given a mining lease for excavation of ordinary sand but not for digging earth. The petitioners application before the Licensing Authority was an afterthought as the matter has already been decided by the Licensing Authority and also by the Appellate Authority (i.e. Director of Industries and Mineral Development Department, Punjab) that the lessee could not be made bound to excavate a particular portion of the leased out area to him as the petitioners owned a small portion of the total granted area.
(2) Not admitted. It is incorrect that the petitioners request was not considered by the Licensing Authority as well as the respondent keeping in view the oral statement of the lessee. The lessee has categorically denied in writing the claim of the petitioners regarding surface rent as he has not worked in their owned lands.
(3)Denied. The order of the Licensing Authority dated 11-10-1992 is speaking as well as it has full sanction under the Punjab Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1990. Further, the mere production of documents regarding ownership of small piece of lands in the granted area does not prove the claim of the petitioners as they (were) failed to satisfy the Licensing Authority about the actual use of their lands by the lessee for excavation of ordinary sand.
The claim of the petitioners in this writ petition as well as their application before the Licensing Authority is contradictory with their request before the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority wherein they have prayed to issue directions to the lessee so as to excavate ordinary sand from their lands. It is, therefore, evident that the lessee has not excavated the ordinary sand from petitioners owned lands.
The petitioners have excavated at least 286 load of trollies from their owned lands without the permission and consent of the lessee which amounts to unauthorised excavation of ordinary sand and punishable under rule 32 of Punjab Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1990.'
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has perused the Comments received from the respondent Deputy Director and argued that refusal to pay compensation to the petitioners by the respondent-authorities is illegal in that they are entitled to the same "vide paras. 7 and 8 of the work order... as the sand is being dug out from the land of the petitioners by the, lessee".
3. When asked to argue how this petition was competent here after petitioner's alleged claim was, admittedly rejected by both the Director of Industries and Mineral Development and the Secretary, Industries and Mineral Development, the learned counsel for the petitioners had nothing to urge in favour of its maintainability. He frankly admitted that he had no knowledge about the contradictory stand of his clients before the Licensing Authority and the appellate as well as revisional- authorities, as mentioned towards the end of the comments against para 3 of the writ petition. He has been informed now that the revision petition of the petitioners before the Secretary, Industries and Mineral Development, mentioned in Annexure `A' to this petition, has been decided against them, during the interregnum. It is not the case of the petitioners that either they have approached the Civil Courts for available relief from Muhammad Tariq Suhail lessee or succeeded in establishing any right against the respondent-authorities for issuing a direction by them to the said lessee to dig out ordinary sand from the lands of the petitioners. That being the position, I am not inclined to the view that any case for issuing the writs/orders in the nature of the mandamus and certiorari, as prayed, has been made out in these proceedings. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed in limine.