JUDGMENT

RANGANATH MISRA, J.:— These are three petitions under Art.32 of the Constitution by three different groups of petitioners. In each of these writ petitions petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company and the second petitioner is a shareholder thereof. The petitioner-company in each of these cases obtained the right to collect oleo resin gum or to process the same for industrial purposes from the State of Jammu & Kashmir and each of them seeks to challenge the vires of the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Extraction of Resin Act (7 of 1986) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. Though there are some variations of facts relevant to each of the writ petitions, the allegations are more or less similar in regard to the relevant contentions - both factual and legal. When rule was issued the respondent- State came with almost the same plea, traversing. common grounds and revealing a common stand in its returns to the Court. These three writ petitions were heard at a time and are now being disposed of by a common judgment.

3. Resin is the secretion extracted by tapping or otherwise from chir, chil, and kail trees wildly growing in the forests of Jammu & Kashmir. It is an exudate and when subjected to chemical treatment and distillation with the aid of steam yields 70% rosin, 15% turpentine and the remaining 15% of waste material. The down-stream products which are manufactured from this raw material are varnish, camphor, paints and turpene chemicals.

4. The petitioner- company in writ petition No. 751/86 obtained under Government order dated 27-4-1979 allotment of 10 to 12 lacs of blazes annually for extraction of resin from the inaccessible forests in Poonch, Reasi and Ramban Divisions of the State for a period of 10 years on terms and conditions set out in the said Government order. Government order had also been made granting rights in favour of the petitioner- company in writ petition No. 794/86. The petitioner-company in writ petition No. 798/86 was a processor only and had not undertaken to work as a tapper. Applications under Art. 32 of the Constitution were filed in this Court at that point of time on the ground that the Government orders and/or contracts were hit by Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution and the grant of forest rights in favour of the present petitioners was arbitrary, mala fide and not in public interest. It was further contended that State largesse had been conferred on the petitioners at the cost of the State exchequer. The petitioners therein also pleaded that a monopoly had been created in favour of the private grantees and was not protected under Art. 19(l)(g) of the Constitution. According to Kasturilal, the petitioner before this Court then, the benefits should have been thrown open and opportunity should have been provided to all interested persons to compete for the obtaining of the contract. A three-Judge Bench consisting one of us (the learned Chief Justice) dealt with the matter at length and ultimately dismissed the petition holding that there was no substance in any of the contentions advanced on behalf of Kasturilal. (Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu & Kashmir) (1980) 3 SCR 1338. The order made in favour of the petitioner- company in writ petition No. 794/86 and incorporated in the agreement dated 6-11-1978 had also been challenged in a separate writ petition before this Court and the reasoned order for rejection of the writ petition is found in Brij Bhushan v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1986) 2 SCC 354.

5. While the petitioner-company in writ petition No. 751/86 had agreed to work as tapper and processor on the stipulation that 25% of the annual collection of gum subject to minimum of 1500 metric tonnes would be made over to the Government company (J & K Industries Limited) and out of the rest not exceeding the limit of 3500 metric tonnes would be used by them, the petitioner- company in writ petition No. 794/86 who had been operating from before as tappers only entered into