ORDER
1. The petitioner is an Association of Traders and Businessmen. The petitioner challenges the legality and validity of Rule 65-A of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (in short ‘the Rules’) and also challenges the policy framed under Rule 65-A of the Rules and which has been published by Notification dated 6-10-1994 (Annex. 3). The petitioner also challenges the auction of the plots for development of minerals, which was to be held on March 27, 1995 (pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, auction has been held, but has not been finalised).
2. Rule 65-A of the Rules, which has been introduced in the Rules on January 23,1992, reads as follows:-
“65A. Grant of mining leases by adopting procedure different from the given- in the Rules:- Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, Government may, by notification in Rajasthan Gazette or atleast one daily newspaper having wide circulation in the State as well as one newspaper having wide circulation in the locality near the area in question adopt any method or procedure different from that provided in the rules for leasing out mineral deposit in the interest of mineral development.”
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid Rule, Policy Notification dated 6-10-1994 (Annex. 3) is issued.
4. It is contended that by inserting Rule 65 A of the Rules, the entire body of the Rules have been rendered nugatory and have been given go by. The contention cannot be accepted. The Government has merely provided for any other method or procedure different from that provided in the Rules for leasing out mineral deposit. This has been done in the interest of mineral development. It may be noted that the main object of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 is to provide regulation of minerals and development of minerals. Therefore, what has been done by inserting Rule 65-A is in the interest of mineral development. By inserting Rule 65-A, the entire body of the Rules has not been given go by But, the Government has thought it fit to adopt different method or procedure in respect of certain minerals to meet with the exigency of the ‘situation. Such power could be assumed by the Government even if the Rule had not been there and it could adopt such procedure by making relaxation in the Rule as provided in Rule 65 of the Rules. Thus this could be done by the Government under the existing provisions of the Rules. In order to avoid confusion and controversy, the Government has inserted new Rule. By this insertion, it has been made clear that Government may not only relax certain procedural requirement but it may adopt altogether different procedure or method for leasing out mineral deposit in the interest of mineral development. The Government intended to do this by laying down Policy. This is evident from the Notification dated 6-10-1994, which lays down the Policy for grant of mining lease/quarry licence in respect of marble including serpentine/green marble etc. In view of this, the argument that the insertion of Rule 65-A is redundant or superfluous cannot be accepted.
5. It is contended that Rule 65-A does not provide for any guidelines and, therefore, it is unjust and arbitrary. It confers arbitrary powers on the Government and hence, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This contention also cannot be accepted. It is the basic principle of Rule of law that whosoever is conferred with the power is required to exercise the power in just, fair and reasonable manner. The power conferred on any Authority is coupled with the obligation to exercise the same in reasonable manner. Simply because guidelines are not indicated in the provisions conferring power, the conferment of power does not become illegal or, void. It may be that in the given circumstance, particular action may have been taken in unjust or arbitrary manner. In that case such action may be invalid. The framers of the Constitution and the legislature presume that the Authority on whom the power is conferred will always act in just, fair and reasonable manner. For this purpose, no command from the Parliament or Legislature is necessary. It is the implicit assumption in our
Constitution. Therefore, absence of guidelines in the Rules would not invalidate the provision in the Rules.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Notification dated 6-10-1994 by which new Policy has been laid down is illegal and bad because it provides for certain conditions by which the entry or eligibility of the persons will be restricted to a particular class. The very nature of development of minerals and much more in respect of marble, requires that certain conditions be imposed so that the National Wealth which is in the shape of minerals is not frittered away. The conditions imposed as regards area and installation of machinery and showing that the person making bid is capable of making some minimum investment are just and reasonable. It cannot be said that they are unjust or unreasonable and not in the interest of mineral development.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the auction to be held on March 27,1995 is bad because it provides that the bid will be made on the basis of annual dead-rent. The condition 9 of the Auction Notification only indicates the method or measure by which the bid is to be made. It does not say nor does it provide that there will be annual dead-rent in excess of what is provided in the Rules. Therefore, this contention has also no merits.
8. Clause 9 of the Policy Notification provides that the pending application shall be rejected and therefore it is submitted that the Rule is retrospective. The argument has no force. Mere submission of the application does not confer any right whatsoever on the applicant. Therefore, this provision does not affect any of the vested right of the applicants concerned. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that he does not press this point.
No other contention is raised.
Hence, there is no substance in this writ petition and the same is dismissed.