Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2024 PLJ 162
Court / Jurisdiction: Peshawar High Court
Year of Decision: 2023
Decision Date: 2023-05-24
Parties: Muhammad Idrees Khan vs Secretary, Mineral Development Department Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and 2 others
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Peshawar High Court on 2023-05-24, officially reported as 2024 PLJ 162. In this matter between Muhammad Idrees Khan and Secretary, Mineral Development Department Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and 2 others, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
Case cited as PLJ 2024 Peshawar 162
Court Name: Peshawar High Court Judge(s): Ijaz Anwar, Muhammad Ibrahim Khan Title:Muhammad Idrees Khan vs Secretary, Mineral Development Department
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and 2 others Case No.: W.P. No. 2094-P of 2022 with IR Date of Judgment:2023-05-24 Reported As: PLJ 2024 Peshawar 162 Result: Petition disposed of Judgment
ORDER Mohammad Ibrahim Khan, J. This common order shall also dispose of connected W.P No. 2337-P of 2022 titled "Muhammad Idrees Khan vs. The Secretary, Mineral Development Department Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & others as similar controversy is involved in both the petitions. Through this petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the Respondent No. 1, being the appellate authority, whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the decision of the Mineral Title Committee for grant of prospecting license was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has not deposited the requisite application fee or that the same is not traceable in the concerned office. 2. When put on notice, Respondent No. 1 filed his parawise comments, wherein issuance of the desired writ was refuted. 3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioner agreed that he is ready to deposit the requisite fee; however, requested the Court for issuance of directions to the respondents to rehear and re-consider the case of petitioner for the subject license. When confronted with the request of learned counsel for petitioner, learned AAG expressed his no objection. 4. Thus, in view of above, this and the connected W.P. No. 2337-P of 2022 are disposed of in terms that the petitioner shall deposit the requisite application fee within one week and thereafter, the respondents shall rehear the petitioner and re-consider his case for the grant of prospecting license in accordance with law/rules.