Honble RAVANI, C.J. –The petitioner is an Association of Traders and Businessmen. The petitioner challenged the legality and validity of Rule 65-A of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (in short `the Rules) and also challenges the policy framed under Rule 65-A of the Rules and which has been published by Notification dated 6.10.1994 (Annex.3). The petitioner also challenges the auction of the plots for development of minerals, which was to be held on March 27,1995 (pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, auction has been held, but has not been finalised).

(2). Rule 65-A of the Rules , which has been introduced in the Rules on January 23, 1992 , reads as follows :–

"65A. Grant of mining leases by adopting procedure different from the given in the Rules :- Notwithstanding any thing contained in these rules, Government may, by notification in Rajasthan Gazette or atleast one daily newspaper having wide circulation in the State as well as one newspaper having wide circulation in the locality near the area in question adopt any method or procedure different from that provided in the rules for leasing out mineral deposit in the interest of mineral development."

(3). Pursuant to the aforesaid Rule, Policy Notification dated 6.10.1994 (Annex. 3) is issued.

(4). It is contended that by inserting Rule 65 A of the Rules, the entire body of the Rules have been rendered nugatory and have been given go bye. The contention cannot be accepted. The Government has merely provided for any other method or procedure different from that provided in the Rules for leasing out mineral deposit. This has been done in the interest of mineral development. It may be noted that the main object of the Mines & Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 is to provide regulation of minerals and development of minerals. Therefore, what has been done by inserting Rule 65-A is in the interest of mineral development. By inserting Rule 65-A, the entire body of the Rules has not been given go bye. But, the Government has thought it fit to adopt different method or procedure in respect of certain minerals to meet with the exigency of the situation. Such power could be assumed by the Government even if the Rule had not been there and it could adopt such procedure by making relaxation in the Rule as provided in Rule 65 of the Rules. Thus this could be done by the Government under the existing provisions of the Rules. In order to avoid confusion and controversy, the Government has inserted new Rule. By this insertion, it has been made clear that Government may not only relax certain procedural requirement but it may adopt altogether different procedure or method for leasing out mineral deposit in the interest of mineral development. The Government intended to do this by laying down policy. This is evident from the Notification dated 6.10.1994, which lays down the policy for grant of mining lease /quarry licence in respect of marble including serpentine / green marble etc. In view of this, the argument that the insertion of Rule 65-A is redundant or superfluous cannot be accepted.

(5). It is contended that Rule 65-A does not provide for any guidelines and, therefore, it is unjust and arbitrary. It confers arbitrary powers on the Government and hence, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This contention also cannot be accepted. It is the basic principle of Rule of law that whosoever is conferred with the power is required to exercise the power in just, fair and reasonable manner. The power conferred on any Authority is coupled with the obligation to exercise the same in reasonable manner. Simply because guidelines are not indicated in the provisions conferring power, the conferment of power does not become illegal or void. It may be that in the given circumstance, particular action may have been taken in unjust or arbitrary manner. In that such action may be invalid. The framers of the Constitution and the legislature presum

Click Here to Read the rest of this document