Judgment

IMAM, J.: These two petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution have been heard together as the question for decision is the same in both of them. It is claimed by the petitioners that their fundamental rights had been infringed by the leasing out of an area of land in Abu Road Taluka to Messrs Jeewan and Sons, Respondent No. 3 for a term of 20 years whereby the latter were permitted to excavate lime-stone.

This was done without inviting any application or tender for the same or the holding of any auction and without notice to the public or to any lime-stone merchants or railway contractors. The petitioners had been excavating lime-stone for many years in Abu Road Taluka previous to the aforesaid lease. They had also leases for lime-kilns for lime burning for the past 10 years. They were informed that they would not be granted permission to excavate lime-stone nor would their leases for their lime-kilns be renewed but would be allotted suitable lands from certain survey number from Akra village.

2. On behalf of the petitioners it was contended that by the granting of the lease to Respondent No. 3 a monopoly was created. It was further contended that during the pendency of their lease for the lime-kilns they were served with peremptory notice directing them to close their lime-kilns within 24 hours, and that by this action of the Government their fundamental rights to hold property and carry on their business had been violated.

3. It is difficult to comprehend, having regard to the facts, how any fundamental rights of the petitioners had been infringed by the granting of the above-mentioned lease to Respondent No. 3. The area ultimately leased to Respondent No. 3 contains no portion which was previously in the lease of the petitioners. The Government as owners of the land with its minerals was prima facie entitled to lease it out to Respondent No. 3 and the petitioners have been unable to show under what authority of law they, had a right to have that area leased out to them instead of Respondent No.3. The action of the Government in granting the lease to Respondent No. 3 cannot in the circumstances of the case be regarded as one by which monopoly of lime-stone business was given to Respondent No. 3 as contended on behalf of the petitioners.

4. It was, however, said that the lease granted to Respondent No. 3 was illegal being contrary to the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948 (Central Act No. LIII of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Rules framed thereunder, namely, the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949. It was pointed out that section 4 of the Act prohibits the granting of a mining lease otherwise than in accordance with the Rules made thereunder and any such lease granted contrary to the provisions of the Act was void and of no effect.

The Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 define what is "minor mineral" and this expression means "building stone, boulder shingle, grave, lime-stone and kankar used for lime burning, murrum, brick-earth, ordinary clay, ordinary sand, and road metal". Rule 4 of these Rules states that they shall not apply to minor minerals, the extraction of which shall be regulated by such rules as the Provincial Government may prescribe. It may be stated that when the lease in question was granted, no Rules had been framed by the Government of Bombay.

The Rules framed by the Government of Bombay came into existence in 1955 and we are not concerned with them. Mr. Anthony for the petitioners contended that as limestone is a "minormineral", although the lease in question is said to have been granted under Rule 26, it could not have been so granted because the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 did not apply to such a lease. There being no Rules framed by the Bombay Government under the provisions of the Act, the lease had been granted in contravention of the express provisions of section 4 of the Act, and, the therefore, was void and of no effect. The action of