| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 298 2026 SLD 298 = 2026 PLD 54 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 7572 of 2024 (and other connected petitions), decided on 4th July, 2025.
Presented By: Before Shahid Kharim, J
Imtiaz Rasheed Siddiqui, Shahryar Kasuri, Raza Imtiaz Siddiqui, Ali Umrao, Haider Aziz, Muhammad Saeed Anjum, Ms. Kanwal Tariq, Shahzad Hassan Pervaiz, Irfan Dawood, Salman Ejaz, Ms. Ayesha Qazi, Asad Abbas Butt, Ashiq Ali Rana, Muhammad Adil, Salman Alam Khan, Arslan Amir Tarar, Faisal Anwar and Qari Habib ur Rehman Zubairi for Petitioners. Hassan Ijaz Cheema, A.A.G. with Rashid Bhatti, Law Officer and Asad Ameer, Deputy Director for
Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 7572 of 2024 (and other connected petitions), decided on 4th July, 2025.
Presented By: Before Shahid Kharim, J
Imtiaz Rasheed Siddiqui, Shahryar Kasuri, Raza Imtiaz Siddiqui, Ali Umrao, Haider Aziz, Muhammad Saeed Anjum, Ms. Kanwal Tariq, Shahzad Hassan Pervaiz, Irfan Dawood, Salman Ejaz, Ms. Ayesha Qazi, Asad Abbas Butt, Ashiq Ali Rana, Muhammad Adil, Salman Alam Khan, Arslan Amir Tarar, Faisal Anwar and Qari Habib ur Rehman Zubairi for Petitioners. Hassan Ijaz Cheema, A.A.G. with Rashid Bhatti, Law Officer and Asad Ameer, Deputy Director for
Respondents.
GHARIBWAL CEMENT LIMITED through Chief Coordination Officer and another---Petitioners
VERSUS
The PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Mines and Minerals Department and 3 others---Respondents
Law: Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002
Section: 68(2),73(3)
Law: Regulation of Mines and Oil-fields and Mineral Development (Government Control) Act, 1948
Section: XXIV,2(8)
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 24
(a) Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002--- ----Rr.68(2) & 73(3)---Regulation of Mines and Oil-fields and Mineral Development (Government Control) Act (XXIV of 1948), S.2---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.24---Failure to pay an amount of royalty and rentals, allegation of--Issuance of demand notice for compound payment of markup on outstanding amount of royalty and rentals, challenge to---Vires of law---Imposition of surcharge as other charges when parent statute not providing a specific provision for imposition of that surcharge---Legality and scope---The challenge in the present case concerned the legality/vires of sub-rule (2) of R. 68 and sub-rule (3) of R. 73 of the Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002, under which markup was imposed on unpaid royalties and rentals---The question before the Court was whether the Provincial Government, under its delegated rule-making authority derived from the Regulation of Mines and Oil-fields and Minerals Development (Government Control) Act, 1948, was empowered to introduce such a financial burden when the parent statute itself contained no express provision authorizing the levy of markup ?---Held: Provincial Government was not vested with the powers to impose markup if in its opinion a person had failed to make payment of the amount of royalty or rental as required by either R. 68 or 73 of the 2002 Rules---The imposition of markup was strictly not covered by the power to determine rates by the Provincial Government and was in excess of that power---It had been assumed to vest in the Provincial Government by the 2002 Rules---Such a power related to taking of property which was a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution and could not be assumed to vest in the Provincial Government by virtue of rules which specifically did not confer such a power to inhere in the Provincial Government---If the legislature intended to include the imposition of mark up in the broader power to determine rates, a precise clause could have been added to S. 2---It was noticeable that various clauses of S. 2 enjoined clear and specific powers which did not include the levy of markup---Such a power, therefore, could not be derived…