( 1 ) BY this writ petition brought under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner a businessman from Baroda challenges the constitutional validity of sec 11 (4) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1957 (hereinafter called the Act ) and the order of the State Government dated 29/08/1978 Annexure C whereby the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by sec. 10 of the Act sanctioned the grant of a mining lease for soap-stone for a period of twenty years in respect of the area situate in village Nathpuri Taluka Jambughoda District Panchmahals to respondent No. 3 Messrs Paushak Limited a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and having its registered office at Baroda. The facts giving rise to the petition briefly stated are as under:

( 2 ) THE petitioner made an application in the prescribed form on 1/10/1974 for a mining lease for soap-stone in respect of 303. 03 acres of Nathpuri and Bhildungra villages of District Panchmahals under Rule 22 of the Mineral Concession Rules (hereinafter called the Rules ) framed in exercise of powers conferred by sec. 13 of the Act. The respondent No. 3 also made a similar application in respect of the same area for a mining lease on 3/10/1974 that is two days after the petitioners application. Along with their applications neither the petitioner nor respondent No. 3 produced the letters of consent of the occupants. However the petitioner succeeded in obtaining the consent of some of the occupants on 15/12/1974. The respondent No. 3 on the other hand secured the consent of all the occupants by 19/12/1974 and forward d the same to the State Government. The application of the petitioner for the grant of a mining lease was however rejected on 6/10/1975. Similarly the application of respondent No. 3 stood rejected on the expiry of the period of twelve months by virtue of Rule 24 of the Rules. In the meantime however the State Government had moved the Central Government under sec. 11 (4) of the Act for approval to grant a mining lease to respondent No. 3 whose application was received later in preference to the petitioner whose application was earlier in point of time. The Central Government gave its approval on 20/01/1976 but by that time as stated above the application of respondent No. 3 stood rejected by 7apse of time. It was therefore not possible For the State Government to grant a mining lease to respondent No. 3 in preference to the petitioners application notwithstanding the previous approval granted by the Central Government.

( 3 ) AFTER the petitioners application was rejected on 6/10/1975 the petitioner filed a Revision Application to the Central Government under sec. 30 read with Rule 54 on 26/11/1975 which was allowed on 2/09/1977. The Central Government directed the State Government to reconsider the application of the petitioner on merits and dispose it of within a period of hundred days. The State Government failed to dispose of the application of the petitioner within the stipulated period and hence the petitioner was constrained to file a second Revision Application to the Central Government on 19/01/1978 That Revision Application was allowed on 9/02/1978 and the same direction as was given on the first occasion was reiterated in the final order passed by the Central Government. The State Government however once again failed to consider the petitioners application on merits and dispose it of within the stipulated period of hundred days whereupon the petitioner moved one Central Government by a third Revision Application on 29/06/1978. The Central Government allowed this Revision Application by its order dated 21/08/1978 and gave a direction to the State Government to dispose of the petitioners application on merits within a period of two hundred days.

( 4 ) ON the other hand respondent No. 3 felt aggrieved by the rejection of his application on account of lapse of time and filed a Revision Application to the Central Governme