The Marble Policy, which rejected pending applications for mining leases, was valid, and the petitioners did not have a vested right to get their applications disposed of according to the rules prevalent at the time of making the applications.

P. P. NAOLEKAR, J.

( 1 ) SINCE common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) IN all these matters, applications for grant of mining lease of mineral marble were pending consideration with the Govt. In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 65-A of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short the Rules hereinafter) brought into force the marble policy w. e. f. 6-10-94. The applications for grant of mining lease moved by the petitioners, were pending consideration either because they were not disposed of or were pending on account of the remand orders made by the appellate or revisional authority. These applications were rejected in view of clause (9) of the Marble Policy wherein it has been provided"applications which have not been disposed of till the date of issue of this notification shall be rejected and application fee shall be refunded". It is the contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners are in no way responsible for non-disposal of their applications till the Marble Policy came into force and further their applications should not have been rejected on the sole ground of the applications being pending when they were ready and willing to fulfil all the requisite conditions laid down in the Marble Policy. Their applications should have been considered as if they have been filed under the provisions of the Marble Policy.

( 3 ) UNDER the Marble Policy, a mining lease or quarry licence in the Government land shall be granted by auction, tender or application as decided by Government after delineation of plots of prescribed size. Therefore, the Government is authorised to delineate the plots of a prescribed size and thereafter adopt the method for grant of a mining lease by auction, tender or application as it deems fit and decides. Clause (2) provides restrictions on grant and renewal of mining lease/ quarry licence. Clause (5) lays down the condition that in the existing areas of mining lease/quarry licence the new lease/licence shall be granted by auction on the condition that mine machinery as prescribed in the notification in the Policy shall be deployed. Where the size of a plot available for grant is one hectare or more, the same may be granted by open auction. Clause (6) provides that twenty-five per cent of the plots delineated in the Government land shall be kept reserved for applicants who have installed marble processing plant or tiling plant or have taken effective steps to instal such plants. Clause (7) provides conditions for the grant of mining lease/quarry licence. Therefore, it is clear from the Marble Policy that method for grant of a mining lease has to be determined by the Government. The Policy provides restrictions for lease. There are conditions prescribed under clause (7) which shall attach to grant of mining lease. All this clearly indicates that for grant of a mining lease under the Marble Policy, the Government has to undertake a fresh procedure and the mining lease cannot be granted on the basis of the applications which have been filed before the Marble Policy came into force. That apart, the validity of clause (9) of the Marble Policy is upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 865/95, decided on 4-5-95, Rajsamand Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 (2) WLC (Raj) 488 : (AIR 1996 Raj 38 ). That being the case, for grant of a mining lease after coming into force of the Marble Policy, the person is required to make fresh application and the application pending consideration, would stand disposed of. The petitioners applications filed prior to coming into force of the Marble Policy, cannot be considered.

( 4 ) IN State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s. Hind Stone, AIR 1981 SC 711, the Apex Court has considered the arguments of the appellant that the application for renewal of lease pending for long time cannot be