Judgement

G. N. RAY, J.:- This appeal and the connected matters are directed against the judgment dated 16th June, 1993 passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 5793 of 1993. The Writ Petitioner Durai Raju Naidu moved the aforesaid writ petition before the Madras High Court for a declaration that Rule 39 of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Mineral Concession Rules) as unconstitutional and void. The said Writ Petitioner contended inter alia that he was granted lease with respect to quarry in Survey No. 782/1 in Kulathur village and he had been agitating before the State Government for the renewal of the said lease but he apprehended that the concerned authorities were likely to exercise their prerogative under the said Rule 39 to grant lease to somebody else and in order to safeguard his interest, the Writ Petition was moved by him for the aforesaid declaration.

2. To sustain the challenge to the said Rule 39, the Writ Petitioner, Shri Naidu, urged two main grounds, namely, (a) The State Government had no power to frame a rule deviating from the Mineral Concession Rules already made in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 15(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as MMRD Act), and (b) Rule 39 had conferred arbitrary, uncanalised and unguided power on the executive thereby offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The expression "public purpose and interest of mineral development" as referred to in the said Rule 39 is vague and do not constitute sufficient guidelines. The said Writ Petition was contested by the State of Madras and also by other respondents who were impleaded in the Writ proceedings, namely, the Tamil Nadu Granites Quarry Owners and Exporters Association, Shanthi Granites and the Premium Granites.

3. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court by the impugned judgment did not accept the first contention of the Writ Petitioner but upheld the second contention and declared that Rule 39 of the Mineral Concession Rules was unconstitutional and void.

4. Premium Granites and Shanthi Granites preferred a Special Leave Petition No. 10306 of 1993 before this Court inter alia challenging the impugned decision of the Madras High Court impleading the State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Commissioner and Secretary to the Government Industries Department, Sri Durai Raju Naidu, the Writ Petitioner and the Tamil Nadu Granites Quarry Owners and Exporters Association. As aforesaid, Civil Appeal No. 4157 of 1993 arises on such special leave petition filed by the said applicants. The State of Madras has also preferred special leave petition challenging the said decision of the Madras High Court and some other parties also made applications before this Court for leave to move special leave petitions and to intervene either to oppose the said appeals or to support the decision of Madras High Court and all these matters have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

5. To appreciate the contentions raised by the contesting parties, certain dates and events may be stated as hereunder :-

In 1957 the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act (MMRD Act) was passed by the Parliament. In 1959, the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules were issued under Section 15 of the MMRD Act. Rule 8 of the Mineral Concession Rules provided for the grant of quarry leases in respect of all Minor Minerals. On December 16, 1972, G.O. No. 1932 was issued by the State of Madras inserting Rule 8 (A) of the Mineral Concession Rules providing grant of lease to persons for quarrying minerals for their existing industries or having industrial programmes. It is the case of some of the parties in the above matters before this Court that they had set up industries based on the above rules and obtained leases of land for quarrying granite for specified period. On August 2