LAL KHAN Versus CHIEF INSPECTOR OF MINES, SIND

1. ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI, C.J.‑‑ By consent, we admit this petition and dispose off it finally by this order. The four petitioner are carrying on business of breaking large stones as stated by the petitioner, and are mining as stated by the respondent No.l. It seems, the respondent No.l came to the view that the petitioner was not carrying on business of mining in accordance with the rule, so that he passed two orders, one on 3‑9‑1985 and the other on 9‑12‑1985. The allegations in the first order were as follows:

2. "There is no Mine Manager duly authorised by the Chief Inspector of Mines, Sind. There has been occurred a fatal accident at your mining place which has also not been reported, but it is learnt that the case to this extent is in process in the Court of District Magistrate/D.C. Many serious and minor accidents are unreported. The blasting is made frequently by the incompetent persons. The Mining/Quaries are not managed properly thus the Stone/Mineral are not conserved properly. The working/ operations are overburden and dangerous."

3. The allegations in the second order again read as follows:

4. "(1) There is no Mine Manager duly authorised by the Chief Inspector of Mines, Sind, Karachi.

(2) The Excavation are made beneath 10 fts. and banks thereof are dangerous.

(3) Many serious and minor accidents are unreported.

(4) The Mining/ Quarrying are not managed properly thus the Stone/Mineral are not conserved properly.

(5) The working/operation are overburden and dangerous.

5. Therefore, immediate discontinuance is ordered, and compliance."

6. In both these orders, the petitioners were directed to immediately discontinue their mining operation.

7. It is common ground between the parties, that even after the passing of these orders which contain the charges against the petitioner, the petitioner was not heard. It would mean that by the same order, the petitioners were charged and punished. The petitioners were carrying on business under a permission which obliged them to make payment to the Mining Department @ Rs.32 per truck. By the order the fruitful vacation that the petitioners had, has been prevented. We are reminded of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Faridsons Ltd. reported in P L D 1961 SC 537, wherein their Lordship had taken a view that before taking any action obliging a citizen from discontinuing his business, a show cause notice was necessary. No doubt section 19 of the Mines Act provides for an appeal but still, before taking action by preventing a mining licensee from carrying on his operation, it would be necessary to hear him. To such an extent even Mr. Abdul Sattar Sheikh states that the petition may be disposed of by an order that ex-post facto hearing shall be afforded to the petitioner. In our view this, is fair, and will completely restore the seals of justice in favour of the petitioners. This petition is disposed of in the terms that the respondent No.l shall issue a notice to the petitioners and hear them. The notice shall state the allegation against the petitioners. After hearing the petitioners, the respondent No.l shall examine all the averments of facts and law and pass a reasoned order. The petition succeeds to the extent indicated above. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.

8. M . Y . H . Petition accepted.