| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 1553 2025 SLD 1553 = 2025 LHC 3979 |
W.P.No.49176/2024
Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, J
Date of hearing 28.04.2025, 30.04.2025, 05.05.2025, 06.05.2025, 12.05.2025, 14.05.2025 & 19.05.2025 Petitioners by Mr. Imtiaz Rashid Siddiqui, Raza Imtiaz Siddiqui, Muhammad Ahmed Tariq Rahim, Hissam Tariq Rahim, Hashim Tariq Rahim, Manahil Ahmad Khan, Waqar Hassan, Muhammad Shoaib Rashid, Nawal Asif, Advocates
Respondents by Mr. Jahanzeb Inam, Additional Advocate General alongwith Raja Mansoor Ahmad, Director General of Mines Punjab and Rashid Bhatti, Law Officer.
DG Khan Cement Company Limited etc.
VS
. The Province of Punjab etc.
Law: Regulation of Mines and Oil-Fields and Mineral Development (Federal Control) Act, 1948
Section: 2
Law: Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002
Section: 65,66
Summary of Judgment:Royalty Dispute
Case Overview:
The petitioners, cement manufacturers, challenged two notifications dated 01.08.2024, issued by the Government of Punjab under the Regulation of Mines & Oil Fields and Mineral Development (Government Control) Act, 1948 and the Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002. These notifications amended Rule 66 of the Rules and increased the royalty on minerals (Limestone & Argillaceous Clay) used in cement manufacturing. The royalty is now calculated as 6% of the ex-factory sale price of cement/clinker.
Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenging therein the amendment in Rule 66 of the Punjab Mining Concessions Rules, 2002 and fixation of enhanced rate of Royalty--- Section 2 of the Regulation of Mines and Oilfields and Mineral Development (Government Control) Act of 1948 empowers the Government to make Rules--- Rule 66(1)(2) of Punjab Mining Concessions Rules, 2002 fixation of Rate of Royalty--- The Government has jurisdiction under Mineral Development (Government Control) Act, 1948 to amend the Punjab Mining Concessions Rules, 2002 and to fix or enhance the amount of royalty on Limestone & Argillaceous Clay. The Provincial Government is also empowered to frame Rules, describing the conditions for Mining Lease and royalties as well as to fix or enhance rate of royalty which (royalty) is not legally considered as a ?tax'. Further as a policy matter the fixing, modifying or enhancing the rate of royalty there is no need to hear the petitioners-companies and the same does not offend the principle of audi alteram partem. --- Writ Petitions dismissed.
Petitioners’ Arguments: