PAKISTAN PETROLEUM LTD. versus DIRECTOR-GENERAL MINES AND MINERALS MINES AND MANPOWER BUILDING
RR 2, 7 (1), 46 (2), 70, 75 (3) (B) and 90 Constitutions granted to Pakistan, Arts 199, 4 and 18 Constitutional Jurisdiction High Court Scope Petitioners Expected License for Iron Ore Mining Lease went. Applicants were hanged, but authorities later issued a one-month notice to show applicants why they did not use the lease. However, before the expiry of the period allowed in the notice, authorities Issued an anticipated license to the applicant in the leasing area. Company / Respondents' legal status violated the terms of their own notice and issued the expected license to another company / defendant before the expiration of the time provided in the showcase notice, in accordance with Audi UltraPremium's principle. Hearing against the petitioners, condemned. A contract involving the favor and exploitation of officials who have lost the peaceful and quiet enjoyment of the right to facts in the area of applicants, eliminating prejudice and mismanagement, where legislative officials have been charged with corruption or partiality. There was sufficient power given to the High Court to issue appropriate direction under Article 199 of the Constitution, in order to permit the issuance of future licenses and to other companies. Under Article 18 of the Constitution, the mining operations in the area leased to the applicant in violation of R 75 (3) (b) of the Mineral Rules of Balochistan 2002, shall require every citizen to enter into any legal proceedings The right to trade or to trade is given. In case of infringement of such right by a public official, Article 199 (1) of the High Court Constitution
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2011
