GHARIBWAL CEMENT LIMITED vs The PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Mines and Minerals Department Rr

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

GHARIBWAL CEMENT LIMITED VS The PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Mines and Minerals Department Rr.68(2) & 73(3)---Regulation of Mines and Oil-fields and Mineral Development (Government Control) Act (XXIV of 1948), S.2(8)---Imposition of mark-up as 'other charges'---Imposition of mark-up was not specifically authorized under the law---In order to justify imposition of mark-up authorities attempted to bring the charge of mark-up within the ambit of the term 'any matter ancillary or incidental to the matters set out in the for going clauses'---Legality---Ancillary and incidental powers---Ambit and scope---Clause (8) of S. 2 provided making of rules on any matter ancillary or incidental to the matters set out in the forgoing clauses of S. 2---It was argued by the respondent authorities that the payment of markup would be covered by any matter ancillary or incidental to the matters set out in the other clauses of S. 2---Validity---This argument had no legal basis---There was no doubt that the term 'any matter ancillary or incidental to the matters set out in the for going clauses' did not cover the imposition of markup in case of failure to pay the principal amount of royalty or rentals---The reliance of the respondents was on clause (8) of S. 2 to cull out a power to fix a penalty---That clause concerned with ancillary and incidental powers---The precise argument, if accepted without demur, would be that under the garb of this clause, the Provincial Government was empowered to make rules to confer upon itself broad and polycentric powers which could go beyond the permissible limits---This argument was constitutionally invalid and had no legal basis---Sub-rule (2) of R. 68 and sub-rule (3) of R. 73 of the Rules 2002 were declared ultravires and illegal and they were struck down---Consequently, the impugned order and the demands issued under these rules were non est and are declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect---The notices were also quashed---Constitutional petitions were allowed, in circumstances. Fiscal statute---Imposition of surcharge as 'other charges' when parent statues does not specifically authorize levy of that specific surcharge---Legality---Fiscal statutes are to be interpreted strictly and there is no room for any intendment---Surcharge cannot be levied under the category of 'other charges'. 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 unilaterally to enrich the Provincial Government---Sub-rule (2) of rule 68 and sub-rule (3) of R. 73 of the Rules 2002 were declared ultra vires and illegal and they were struck down---Consequently, the impugned order and the demands issued under these rules were non est and were declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect---The notices were also quashed---Constitutional petitions were allowed, in circumstances.

GHARIBWAL CEMENT LIMITED vs The PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Mines and Minerals Department Rr — 2026 PLD 54 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLD