PESHAWAR, Aug 16 (APP):Peshawar High Court Wednesday granted stay by restraining DG Mines and Minerals and a private company from interfering, and creating obstacles in mining operations of petitioner in 500 acres Emerald Mine in District Shangla.

A division bench of Justice Arshad Ali and Justice Fazal Subhan heard a writ petition filed by M/S Malik Minerals and Mining Company against judgement of KP Appellate Tribunal Mines and Minerals wherein it had allowed another company to have a prospective licence for emeralds over a 5 acres area adjacent to 500 acres mine of petitioner company in blatant violation of the mines & minerals Act 2017.

Advocate Nouman Muhib Kakakhel represented the petitioner company.

The counsel argued that an appeal was filed by the another company for refusal of the Department to grant prospecting licence, however, they preferred an appeal and it was shown that the area was only to be given on Auction instead if prospective licence hence the then appellate dismissed the appeal and also declared other PLs in the area as illegal.

The private respondent moved PHC, which ordered the newly established tribunal to give an opportunity of hearing to the respondent company and decide the case afresh, however, the tribunal instead of a fresh decision disposed the appeal of without deciding the case and allowed the respondent company to have a Prospective Licence in a place reserved for auction.

The counsel argued that in a place where a mineral had been explored and was being mined, a prospective licence could not be granted rather a mining lease was to be given through an auction, hence the PL was illegal.

The counsel argued that the 5 acres as given through PL was not following the 20 meter distance as provided for by the law .

The counsel argued that tunnels were being dug near the mines of petitioner company which was creating hindrance with their access to the mine and the waste was being thrown to the private lands of the partners of the petitioners whereas the labour was constantly being harassed and threatened by the authorities and the private respondent.

The court after hearing counsel for the petitioner, restrained the mines and mineral authorities and the private company to interfere in mining operations of the petitioner and creating hindrance in their work till final decision of the case