' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 12- 3-2002, passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, in Criminal Petition No,577 of 2001.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No,1 Haji Abdul Waheed, participated in the auction for collecting royalty on Miner Minerals such as Bajri, Sand, Stone Crush etc., for District Lasbela including Hub. The publication was made in the newspapers by respondents Nos.2 and 3, under Balochistan Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). As respondent No,1 was the highest bidder, he was awarded contract for collecting royalty on the said items from District Lasbela including Hub. The petitioner is carrying out work of costal Highway, and has been extracting Sand, Bajri and Stone Crush from Hub River within the District Lasbela. Since the said items are subject to payment of royalty under the Rules, the petitioner, who was paying duties in the beginning, refused to pay royalty on the said items. In this regard, a Suit for Declaration and Injunction was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Hub, which was later on withdrawn on the ground that it was not efficacious and adequate remedy. Pursuant to notices, representative of respondents Nos.2 and 3 appeared and conceded that the Government Organizations are not exempted from payment of royalty under the said Rules. Notices were given to the petitioner and learned Deputy Attorney-General filed parawise comments, wherein, it is stated that the main cause for non-payment of royalty on the said items is that the Federal Government has taken the task of development and uplifting of Balochistan for bringing it at par with the other Provinces of the Country and further no directions have been received from the Government of Balochistan to pay royalty on the said items and further the material collected by the petitioner is for the purpose of construction of Makran Costal Road, which has ben declared as project of National Importance by the Government of Balochistan, therefore, demand of royalty from respondent No,1, is uncalled for and without any justification.
3. Peeling aggrieved, respondent No,1 filed Constitutional Petition No,577 of 2001 against the petitioner, respondents Nos.2 and 3, in the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, which was allowed with some observations vide impugned judgment dated 12-3-2002. Hence, this petition.
4. Mr. Abdul Kadir Siddiqui, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Balochistan, failed to consider that the matter, as a pure civil contract, requires evidence, for which the only remedy was to file a civil suit, which was subsequently withdrawn, and in view of the above, the Constitutional Petition before the High Court, under extraordinary jurisdiction, was not maintainable/entertainable; that the impugned judgment is against the facts and law which suffers from legal infirmity and is liable to be set aside.
5. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and minutely examined the available record. Admittedly, Haji Abdul Waheed respondent No,1, as a highest bidder, was awarded the contract, by way of grant of lease through an open and transparent auction. Under the contract, he was authorized to collect royalty on Miner Minerals, as mentioned hereinabove.
Respondent No,1 is extracting Bajri, sand, stone crush from Hub River and other parts of District Lasbela, therefore, these items are liable to payment of royalty, as provided under the rules. Initially, the petitioner-Commanding Officer, was making the payment of the above duties, but subsequently he refused to pay the same. No doubt, a civil suit was filed by respondent No,1, as mentioned hereinabove, which was rightly withdrawn on the ground that it was not efficacious and adequate- remedy. Thereafter, he approached the learned High Court. The only, question before the High. Court was whether the petitioner was liable to pay royalty as provided under the rules. In this connection parawise comments were filed on behalf of the petitioner, wherein it was stated that the main ground for non-payment of royalty on the above items is that the Federal Government has taken the task of development and uplifting of Balochistan for bringing it at par with the other provinces of the country.
6. The learned Deputy Attorney-General conceded at the bar before the High Court that the Federal and Provincial Governments have not been exempted from the payment of duty on Bajri, sand, stone crush etc., but his stand was that since the materials, so extracted, were being used for the construction of costal highway, which is the project of National importance, as such Provincial and Federal Governments are exempted from payment of tax/royalty. The construction of costal highway being a project of the National importance, does not entitle the petitioner not to pay the tax/royalty wherein no such exemption is sanctioned by the Federal or Provincial Government.
7. As stated hereinabove, the matter before the High Court was to decide whether the petitioner was liable to pay the tax/royalty or not. Neither there was any need of recording of evidence, nor there was dispute to resolve factual controversy. The High Court rightly considered the case from every angle and decided it in accordance with law. It would be advantageous to reproduce here the relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:-- "5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. It may be pointed out that under the Rules, the said items are liable to duty tax/royalty and for such purpose publication was made under the Rules and in open auction petitioner being highest bidder was given contract and there is nothing on record to show that any Government department is exempted from tax/duty; thus the contention of Syed Ayyaz Zahoor, Advocate for the petitioners has substance. Admittedly the petitioners are extracting Bajri, sand, stone crush from Hub River and other parts of District Lasbela which is liable to payment of royalty, therefore, petition is allowed as prayed for Respondent to pay tax in future and also to pay arrears i.e, w.e.f, 24-2-2001 on the material already extracted by them.
(6) Petition is allowed in the above terms with no order as to costs."
The impugned judgment is not open to exception, as it is well-reasoned and based on the law.
There is no material irregularity or illegality.
8. For the facts and reasons stated hereinabove, were are of the considered view, that this petition is without merit and substance, which is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal declined.