JAVED IQBAL, J.---This is a Constitutional petition preferred on behalf of M/s. Ittehad Cement Industries Ltd. Under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution) with the following prayer:-- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to:--
(a) Declare that the order dated 27-4-1995, passed by the respondent No.2 is illegal and of no legal effect and as such is liable to be set aside.
(b) Declare that the petitioner is the lawful grantee of the Prospecting Licence for an area specified in the revised consolidated plans containing Lime Stone and Shale respectively and the respondent No.5 does not have any concern/right in respect of the said mining areas.
(c) Declare that the respondent No.3 cannot reduce the area granted in favour of the petitioner on 28-9-1991, without issuing a show-cause notice and affording opportunity of hearing and carrying out physical inspection of the areas of the petitioner as well as the respondent No.5, in light of orders dated 27-4-1994 passed by the respondent No.3.
(d) Declare that conversion of P.L. Into M.L. By the respondent No.3 in respect of Lime-Stone as well as 'Shale' vide letter dated 30-8-1994, in favour of respondent No.5 during the pendency of Appeal No.341/94 was illegal and steps taken thereafter including extension of mining lease and or extension of date of assignment with respondent NO.IV to respondent No.1/4 are illegal and of no legal effect.
(e) Declare that letter dated 22-2-1994 does not have any legal effect in respect of the areas of the petitioner for both the minerals and same is issued without any lawful authority.
(f) Declare that the respondent No.4 cannot open any letter of credit in favour of the respondent No.5 by means of having pledge of said mining areas or portion thereof belonging to the petitioner.
(g) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court consider appropriate and fit in the peculiar circumstances of the case.
(h) Declare that order dated 25-7-1992 passed by the respondent No.II is illegal, perverse and the notification dated 8-11-1992 issued as consequence thereof are of no legal effect.
(j) Costs."
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was allotted an area measuring 2926.80 acres to excavate Lime-Stone and further area measuring 2355.78 acres for Shale for which Prospecting Licence No. PL-Lime-Stone (1145) and PL-Shale (5) respectively were issued after completion of the mandatory prerequisites and after formalities including N.O.C., from Commissioner Kalat at Khuzadar. Subsequently the petitioner applied for another free area for allotment measuring 2103.30 acres for Lime and an area measuring 2479.33 acres for Shale on 9-7- 1991, as the abovementioned areas were located adjacent to the areas already allotted in their favour. The abovementioned areas and the areas' allotted already were consolidated and petitioner took over the possession and started excavation after investing handsome amount in order to establish a Cement Plant. The petitioner after completion of the spade work applied for conversion of its Prospecting Licence into Mining Lease which was declined on the ground that a major portion of the allotted area was restored in favour of M/s. Galadhari Cement (Gulf) Ltd.
(respondent No.5) in spite of the fact that requisite dead rent was regularly paid by the petitioner and the entire area also remained in his possession and cancellation whereof could not have been made without adopting prescribed legal procedure. An appeal was filed before the Appellate Authority which was dismissed and subsequently the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing a Constitutional Petition wherein the vires and propriety of order dated 25-7-1992, 8-11-1992, 22-2-1994, 30-8-1994 and 27-4-1995 passed by Secretary Industries-cum-Appellate Authority (respondent No.2) and Director, Mineral Development (respondent No.3) were challenged.
3. It is mainly contended by Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Khan Tanoli, Advocate on behalf of petitioner that order dated 27-4-1995 passed by Secretary, Industries-cum-Appellate Authority (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order) being perverse, illegal and arbitrary is liable to be set aside as the same is based on mere surmises and conjectures and is not sustainable in law because, the documentary evidence on record was not taken into consideration. It is urged with vehemence that petitioner is the lawful allottee of the area as per revised consolidated maps and thus is legally entitled to hold it for the purpose of Cement Plant, which was allotted after completion of all necessary formalities and the area in question after allotment falls within the ambit of 'property' and petitioner cannot be deprived of the same without having proper opportunity of hearing and after following the prescribed legal course. It is also contended that the area in question was allotted being free and its subsequent cancellation was with mala fide intention to deprive the petitioner from his lawful possession of the area. It is also mentioned that the petitioner had paid all the rents and dues in respect of the disputed area and as such, the Appellate Authority ought to have re-verified all the relevant aspects before passing any order. It is next argued that Secretary Industries-cum-Appellate Authority (respondent No-2) has seriously erred by holding in its impugned order that respondent No.5 had carried out Prospecting satisfactorily, and as such was entitled to conversion of P.L. Into M.L. It is urged strenuously that the area granted to the petitioner cannot be reduced by Director, Mineral Development (respondent No.3) arbitrarily without issuance of proper notice to the petitioner enabling-him to substantiate his claim by adducing documentary and oral evidence. It is further argued that reduction in area could not have been made without carrying out physical inspection of the area for which notices were served, but subsequently for the reasons best known to the authorities concerned, the same were withdrawn without any lawful justification. It is also urged that M/s. Galadhari Cement (Gulf) Ltd. (respondent No.5) had violated the obligation as contemplated under Rule 32(D) of the Baluchistan Mining Concession Rules, 1970 and in consequence whereof Director, Mineral Development had issued a show-cause notice and in reply whereof it was admitted by respondent No.5 that Mining operation could not be carried out for certain reasons, but amazingly the findings of the Appellate Authority are contradictory and no supporting material is available and the verdict given vide impugned order is based on conjectural presumptions and the judgment dated 25-7-1992, to which petitioner was not a party, hence it cannot be made applicable to him. It is also pointed out that after grant of Prospecting Licence in favour of petitioner and payment of dues including dead rent as calculated by Director Mineral Development, Government of Baluchistan, a vested right has accrued in favour of the petitioner which cannot be infringed without following the due process of law and in accordance with natural justice. Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Khan Tanoli, Advocate also contended that no intimation or notice whatsoever was received from Director, Mineral Development, Government of Baluchistan, Quetta, (respondent No.3) regarding cancellation, reduction or withdrawal of the allotted area to the petitioner and on the contrary respondent No.3 has been demanding all the rents and dues from the petitioner which was paid accordingly. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has yet to receive any intimation about the number of coordinates which have been reduced. It is also submitted that M/s. Galadhari Cement (Gulf)
Limited (respondent No.5) is mainly interested to procure loan on the basis of Mining Lease Area and the land allotted was mortgaged with Bankers Equity Limited (respondent No.4), but no Letter of Credit could be opened on the basis of pledging of the said land. It is also urged that the petitioner was not aware about the decision dated 25-7-1992 made by the Appellate Authority, as no official intimation was given except a letter dated 22-2-1994 whereafter the petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Authority in view of provisions as enumerated under Rule 71 of Baluchistan Mining Concession Rules, 1970. It is also alleged that M/s. Galadhari Cement (Gulf) Ltd.
Is a Company which has no interest with the economy of Pakistan or to do any service to the local people of District Lesballa, but on the contrary the Directors of M/s. Ittehad Cement Industries Ltd.
(petitioner) are the bona fide residents of Tehsil Hubb and have by now established various other Industrial Units at Hub and Winder in order to promote the economy of the country. It is further agitated that during subsistence of P. L. In favour of the petitioner regarding area in question no M.L.
Could have been granted in favour of any other party except the petitioner but in spite of it, M.L.
Was granted in favour of respondent No.5 by responden; No.3 whereas respondent No.2 withheld the decision of the appeal in order to favour respondent No.5. It is also mentioned that there is no alternative or efficacious remedy available to the petitioner except this Constitutional petition.
4. Mr. H. Shakeel Ahmed, Advocate appeared on behalf of Bankers Equity Limited (respondent No.4) and strictly controverted the position as canvassed by Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Khan Tanoli, Advocate, by arguing that petitioner was aware about all the development and he was never condemned unheard. It is urged vehemently that area in dispute was allotted in favour of M/s. Galadhari Cement (Gulf) Ltd. (respondent No.5) which was cancelled on 6-7-1991 and surprisingly allotted to petitioner on 9-7-1991 which speaks the mala fide. It is further argued that on 1-6-1991 when the petitioner applied for the disputed area it stood allotted in the name of respondent No.5 whose appeal was pending before the Appellate Authority regarding cancellation of the area. It is also contended that first order was passed by the Appellate Authority on 25-7-1992 but petitioner remained silent and no action whatsoever was initiated by him for the redress of his grievances. He also seriously questioned the maintainability of petition as disputed question of facts are involved.
It is also argued that petitioners have not mentioned their exact status as to whether it was a public limited Company or Private Company and the petitioner itself is not clear as contradictory stand was taken by showing it as Private Limited Company before Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and counter-affidavit to this effect was filed. It is urged with vehemence that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands and a civil suit filed earlier on the similar grounds wherein identical relief was sought has not been mentioned in the petition and this fact has deliberately been suppressed. Mr. H. Shakeel Ahmed, Advocate, has further pointed out that huge amount worth million of rupees has been spent by now and more than 37 different contracts have been executed including credit agreement guaranteed by Local Banks by mortgaging valuable property and besides that more than 34 Engineers are performing their duties at site to establish a Cement Factory. It is also submitted that the area in question was not admittedly vacant and appeal filed regarding its cancellation was pending adjudication before the Appellate Authority when the petitioners with ulterior motive got the area in dispute allotted in their favour which could have not been done till the final decision of the matter, It is also urged that there is no jurisdictional defect in the impugned order as passed by learned Appellate Authority on 25-7-1992 and there is no justification for second appeal filed by the petitioner who remained associated in the proceedings of appeal decided on 25-7-1992 and impugned order itself would indicate that Mr. Ehsan-ul-Haque appeared on behalf of petitioners and opportunity of hearing was afforded. It is also pointed out that this petition has been filed by incompetent person as resolution from Directors of the petitioner's Company has not been filed alongwith the petition and admittedly the petitioner is not a Director.
5. Chaudhary Ejaz Yousaf, Additional Advocate-General appeared on behalf of official respondents and supported the impugned orders passed on 25-7-1992 and subsequently on 24-7-1994, by the learned Appellate Authority on the ground that no illegality or irregularity whatsoever was committed by the Appellate Authority. It is also mentioned that the powers as conferred upon the Appellate Authority was exercised judiciously and in absence of any patent illegality no interference is called for merely on the ground that a different view can be taken. He also referred the provisions as contained under Order 29, Rule 1, C.P.C. Which mainly deals with suits to be filed by or against Corporation. He also urged that petitioner has no locus standi and is not an aggrieved person as neither any right whatsoever was accrued in his favour nor it was infringed. It is further argued that the petitioner was never condemned unheard and proper opportunity of hearing was afforded before decision dated 25-7-1992 made by the Appellate Authority and Mr. Ehsan-ul-Haque appeared on his behalf and argued the matter but favourable decision could not be made in favour of petitioners. It is also mentioned that provisions as contained in Rule 71 of the Baluchistan Mining Concession Rules, 1970 provide only one appeal and as such, the second appeal filed by the petitioner before Appellate Authority was unlawful. In order to substantiate his version he relied on 1980 SCMR 711 + 1995 SCMR 362.
6. Mr. Zahid Muqeem Ansari, Advocate appeared on behalf of M/s. Galadhari Cement (Gulf) Limited (respondent No.5) and objected strenuously that the Constitutional petition as filed was not maintainable and besides that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and suit filed previously on similar lines was not brought to the notice of this Court. He further contended that fair opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner whose counsel remained present before Appellate Authority and as such it cannot be agitated after lapse of about considerable period and as such the petition is hit by laches. It is next argued that keeping in view the factual controversies, the petition deserves to be dismissed as no conclusion can be derived by this Court without calling for evidence which is not possible while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction which otherwise is discretionary. On the remaining points he followed the arguments as adduced by Mr. H. Shakeel Ahmed, Advocate who appeared for Bankers Equity Limited (respondent No.4).
7. We have carefully examined the respective contentions as adduced on behalf of the parties in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. We have minutely perused the order of Appellate Authority dated 25-7-1992 and 27-4-1995. Let we make it clear at the outset that Constitutional relief being discretionary can be refused, if circumstances so justify and Constitutional jurisdiction could not be exercised to force the Court to exercise its discretionary power in a particular manner. It must not escape unnoticed that Constitutional remedy being extraordinary, no one is entitled to claim as of right, the exercise of discretionary powers (1986 CLC 1813 + 1985 CLC 2546) which can only be exercised within the limits as prescribed by the provisions as contained in Article 199 of the Constitution. The pivotal question to be determined is as to what illegality has been committed by the Appellate Authority or what injustice has been done to the petitioner. We have carefully examined the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority on 25-7-1992 and relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereinabove for ready reference:-- "I have heard the parties at length and have carefully examined the record wherefrom I find that the appellants had carried out prospecting satisfactorily and were entitled to the conversion of prospecting Licence into Mining lease within the purview of Rule 38 of Baluchistan Mining Concession Rules, 1970. There was no breach or violation of any rule of obligation on the part of the appellants and that there was no reasons to keeping the conversion of the lease in abeyance for such a long period. The show-cause notices were misconceived and vague and the Notifications No.ML. Lime-Stone (2)/4961-71 and No.M.L-Shale (1)/4972-82 dated 6-7-1991 based on different grounds which were vague and unsubstantiable on record are void and illegal and the rejection of applications for conversion of prospecting licence into mining leases also unjust and unwarranted.
However, the fact that the appellant failed to utilize/do Mining in the area as also Cement plant could be established for such a long time is correct.
Since appellant were not given ample chance to explain his position, therefore, the impugned notifications are hereby set aside directing the respondent to deal with the matter in accordance with law.
As such the appeals are allowed."
8. A bare perusal would indicate that following definite findings have been made by the Appellate Authority--
(a) that the appellants (M/s. Galadhari Cement (Gulf) Limited had carried out prospecting satisfactorily and were entitled to the conversion of PL into Mining Lease within the purview of Rule 38 of Baluchistan Mining Concession Rules, 1970.
(b) There is no breach or violation of any rule or obligation on the part of the appellants (M/s. Galadhari Cement (Gulf) Limited).
(c) The notifications whereby the disputed area was cancelled were set aside.
Now here the question arises that up to what extent interference can be made by exercising our Constitutional jurisdiction. It is to be kept in mind that Appellate Authority is a validly constituted forum under Baluchistan Mining Concession Rules, 1970 duly framed in exercise of rowers as conferred by section 2 of the Regulation of Mines and Oil-Fields and Mineral Development (Federal Control) Act, 1948 (XXIV of 1948) by the Government of Baluchistan, by whom certain conclusions have been drawn after scrutiny and perusal of relevant record and rules which are neither patently illegal nor arbitrary and requires some concrete base and cogent justification to get it reversed which apparently is lacking. It is well-settled by now that the High Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction does not act as a Court of fact, it can only interfere if the finding is based on no evidence or is based on complete misreading of evidence and simultaneously controversial questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in writ as High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot embark upon enquiry into realm of facts. (PLD 1985 Lahore 353 + PLD 1976 Kar. 728 + PLD 1961 SC 636 + PLD 1964 Kar. 468 + PLD 1966 Lah. 616 + PLD 1962 Lah. 364 + PLD 1963 Kar. 726 + PL1 1975 Lah. 385 + PLD 1968 Lah. 938).
9. We have not been able to persuade ourselves to agree with Mr. Ashraf Khan Tanoli, Advocate that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded. The order dated 25-7-1992 potrays altogether a different picture which is as under:-- "On the file there is an application dated 29-12-1991 made by Mr. Ehsan-ul-Haque, Advocate on behalf of one Ittehad Cement Factory seeking adjournment in appeal captioned as-- Ittehad Cement Factory v. Director General Appeal under section 71 of Mining Concession Rule, 1971. saying that the counsel of the appellant was busy in connection with some other cases. Although the application was irrelevant, so as the present appeals are concerned as also stressed in reply to the same filed by the appellants, still Mr. Ehsan-ul-Haque was called and heard, who for the first time disclosed that some portion of the area under appeal has been allotted to M/s. Itehad Cement Factory and as such he is interested in the matter. However there is nothing on record to show that any area has been allotted to any one and the rejoinder filed by the respondent is silent in this behalf and does not disclose/mention as such. He further argued that appellants failed to make use of the Lease allotted and that they have not been able to show any material evidence that they are going to establish Cement Factory."
10. The said reproduced portion makes it clear that Mr. Ehsan-ul-Haque, Advocate was heard and as such it cannot be agitated that petitioner was condemned unheard. At opportune moment and before Appellate Forum the petitioner even failed to show that disputed area was allotted in his favour. The failure of petitioner to establish its case on the basis of documentary evidence as opined by the Appellate Authority cannot be re-opened being a past and closed transaction. It is well-settled by now "that cases in which transactions had become past and closed due to efflux of time could not be re-opened. (PLD 1987 Kar. 670)". It is worthwhile to mention here that petitioner has sought for declaration that order dated 25-7-1992 being illegal and perverse and Notification dated 8-11-1992 issued in pursuant to that should be declared as unlawful and without having legal effect. The action taken in accordance with law in the year 1992 cannot be reversed in 1996 on flimsy grounds. It is an admitted fact that petitioner was well aware regarding repercussion of the order dated 25-7-1992 in pursuance whereof the Notification as mentioned above was issued. We have also focused our attention to order dated 27-4-1995 passed by Appellate Authority whereby appeal filed by petitioner against order dated 22-2-1994 and 30-8-1994 were decided. The relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-- "9. In support of his claim the appellant has referred to an N.O.C. Purported to have been issued by the Commissioner for grant of area on 19-11-1991. This obviously does not help the appellant nor does it relate to the present matter as according to appellant the alleged prospecting licenses had been granted to him on 9-7-1991, furthermore, appellant has stated in his appeal that after taking possession of the area i.e. 9-7-1991 the appellant started prospecting the area with the help of foreign consultants but the appellant has produced no proof, documentary or otherwise, to the contrary the same is belied by the fact as borne out from the appellate authorities judgment dated 25-7-1992, wherein it has been observed that prospecting has been carried out satisfactorily by M/s. Galadhari Cement Factory (Gulf) who had also submitted audited report verifying expenses of about 23 lacs of rupees on prospecting. This fact is further available in the judgment that the said Galadhari Cement Ltd., had invested about Rs.60 Million or so on the project till 1991. In appeal the appellants have also stated that they have made payment of Government dues. According to the appellant and also as borne out/from the impugned order itself the appellant has other areas over and above the areas granted to the Galadhari Cement (Gulf) Limited. Therefore, the appellants were liable to make payment for those areas also to the Government. If any access payment has been made that can be adjusted.
10. The crux of the whole matter is that the cancellation of the prospecting licences of M/s. Galadhari (Gulf) Cement Limited i.e. Respondent No.2 having been set aside and the area restored to them, all rights in the area vest exclusively in M/s. Galadhari Cement (Gulf) Limited and the appellant has no right thereto. The record shows that the Prospecting Licences of M/s. Galadhari
(Gulf) Limited have already been converted into mining lessee duly registered on 9-10-1994 and since then the said Galadhari Cement (Gulf) Limited is in possession of the areas as lessee. The appellant were also granted approximately areas measuring 3,000 acres into Blocks (2200+800) for Lime Stone and 1800 acres for Shale. These areas have no concern with the areas granted to Galadhari Cement (Gulf) Limited. As such the order/letter dated 22-2-1994 by the respondent No.1 was perfectly in order. "
11. "The High Court in writ jurisdiction can only examine the legality of the impugned order. (PLD 1967 Lah. 1251 (D.B.). Where discretion is vested under a law in a statutory body, the mode of exercising the discretion cannot be interfered with by the High Court." (1982 SCMR 969). A careful scrutiny of the above reproduced paragraph would indicate that various controversial points have been adjudicated such as to whether prospecting has been carried out satisfactorily by M/s. Galadhari Cement (Gulf) Limited (respondent No.5) who had also submitted audit report verifying the expenses of about Rs.23 lacs on prospecting. It also transpires that other areas over and above areas granted to the M/s. Galadhari Cement (Gulf) Limited was allotted in favour of the petitioner. It is to be noted that we cannot upset the findings regarding satisfactorily prospecting by M/s. Galadhari Cement (Gulf) Limited (respondent No.5) and as such, it was entitled to conversion of PL to ML, this aspect of the matter was to be dealt with by the Department concerned and after taking into consideration the technical aspect of the matter, the conclusion was derived and upheld by the Appellate Authority cannot be reversed. It is further to be noted that we have no material before us to infer as to whether M/s. Galadhari Cement (Gulf) Limited, had violated the obligation as enshrined in Rule 32 of the Baluchistan Mining Concession Rules, 1970. It is also controversial as to whether the main object of respondent No.5 is to obtain loan as alleged by the petitioner on the basis of leased area instead of establishing a Cement Plant. How much area would be required for setting up a Cement Plant cannot be determined by us. It also requires evidence to determine whether the Mining Lease in question was got registered after 13-9-1994 if so what would be its impacts. The disputed question as to whether the Cement Plant has been sold to M/s. Bibojee Services (Private) Limited, as alleged by petitioner also requires a thorough probe which cannot be made while exercising our Constitutional jurisdiction. It also requires evidence to establish who has spent how much amount? Keeping in view the factual controversies as mentioned above and many others, no definite findings can be given without looking into the evidence which might be available with the petitioner and respondents but it cannot be called by this Court for the simple reasons that such practice would neither be advisable nor desirable. High Court will not go into disputed question of fact in Constitutional jurisdiction (1991 CLC 2004 + 1991 MLD 1492 + 1989 SCMR 918 + PLD 1985 Lah. 545 + 1984 SCMR 963). This is moreso, when it is supported by attending circumstances and relevant record (PLD 1976 Lah. 880 + PLD 1974 SC 139). The Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court cannot be converted into that of an Appellate Court. Disputed question of facts cannot be entered or allowed to be re-agitated in writ jurisdiction (1982 CLC 1972), when the relevant law provides other forums for the purpose (1987 PCr.LJ 1413 (D.B)). It is worthwhile to mention here that while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction Court does not go into a question involving minute details nor can it decide facts of which no foundation is laid (1990 MLD 563 (D.B.)), unless it is shown that such controversies devoid of supporting record, or perverse (1990 MLD 344).
It is pertinent to mention here that a civil suit was also filed by the petitioner on 8-12-1994 meaning thereby that they opted to approach for redress of their grievances but it was dismissed in default on 16-5-1995 and no action was taken to get it restored. In our view the Civil Court was the appropriate forum to determine all the controversies after recording evidence. "The superior Court should not involve themselves into investigations of disputed questions of facts which necessitate taking of evidence which can more conveniently be done in the ordinary Civil Procedure for litigation by a suit. The Constitutional jurisdiction which is extraordinary is preliminarily intended for providing an expeditious remedy in case where the illegality of the impugned 'action of an executive or other authority can be established without elaborate enquiry into complicated or disputed facts (1991 CLC 1078 + 1986 SCMR 598 + PLD 1987 Quetta 103 (D.B.)). It is also well-settled by now that controversial questions of fact, adjudication of which is possible only after obtaining all types of evidence in power and possession of parties, can be determined only by I Courts having plenary jurisdiction in matter and on such ground Constitutional petition cannot be filed. (PLD 1982 SC 280 + PLD 1983 SC 280).
12. It is also to be noted that the area restored to M/s. Galadhari Cement (Gulf) Limited, remained vacant for a few days when appeal was pending, but department concerned for reason best known to it, in undue haste allotted the area to petitioner and endless litigation started thereafter.
12. In view of various factual controversies and abovementioned discussion we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. Therefore, question of fact on ' which findings had already been given by a forum of exclusive jurisdiction and the findings attained finality is not opened to challenge in Constitutional jurisdiction. This Court can neither determine the question whether the finding of a Tribunal is based on sufficient evidence or not, nor can it substitute its own finding for that of Appellate Authority whose duty is to decide the factual controversy (PLD 1963 Kar. 219 + PLD 1962 Lahore 364 + PLD 1987 Quetta 103 + 1985 CLC 2807). Besides, that Appellate forum has exercised its authority as conferred upon it under relevant rules, and there is neither any patent illegality nor grave irregularity as such it is not proper in the circumstances as mentioned above to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 199of the Constitution, the petition is resultantly dismissed with no order as to costs.