G. T. NANAVATI, S. H. SHETH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner applied on 14th December 1978 for a lease of land adjoining survey No. 211 and survey No. 212 of village Bhat in Gandhinagar District He wanted that lease to be granted under Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules 1965 in order to enable him to remove and from Sabarmati river bank. all 27th January 1979 his application was rejected. Two reasons were given in that order. Firstly the Government had decided to plot out the land and auction it out for granting quarry lease. Secondly modification under rule 18 (1) (c) of Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules 1966 was not published. ( 2 ) THE question of issuing notification under rule 18 (1) (c) of Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules 1966 arose under the following circumstances. One R. M. Patel was granted:- on 14th March 1973 a lease for one year in respect of a part of the land in question. On the expiry of the period of that lease it was renewed for one more year. The renewed lease expired on 2nd March 1974. Thereafter it was not renewed. The land which was leased out to R. M. Patel was not leased out to any one else thereafter. ( 3 ) ONE Piraji Bhikaji Bajara obtained on 20th December 1972 a lease in respect of another part of this land for a period of one year. On the expiry of the period of that lease it was renewed for one more year. It was again renewed for one more year. The period of lease which was renewed on two occasions would have ordinarily aspired on 19th December 1975 However by order dated 1st October 1975 the lease was revoked because the lessee had contented breach of condition No. 3 in Parts V and VI of the lease. Since the land in question was in two parcels leased out earlier notification under rule 18 (1) (c) was required to be issued before it could be regranted to any one. ( 4 ) UNDER these circumstances the first contention which Mr. Sompura has raised is that rule 18 (1) (c) of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules 1966 is ultra vires sec. 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1957 and Art. 14 of the Constitution. In order to examine the challenge which Mr. ( 4 ) UNDER these circumstances the first contention which Mr. Sompura has raised is that rule 18 (1) (c) of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules 1966 is ultra vires sec. 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1957 and Art. 14 of the Constitution. In order to examine the challenge which Mr. Sompura has raised it is necessary to turn to rule 18 (1) (c ). It reads as follows:"no area which was previously held or which is being held under a quarry lease or in respect of which an order has been made for the grant thereof but the applicant has died before the execution of a lease deed or in respect of which the order granting lease has been revoked under sub-rule (4) of rule 11 shall be available for regrant unless the date from which the area shall be available for regrant is notified in the Officer Gazette at least thirty days in advance. Any application received before the date so notified in the Official Gazette shall be premature and shall not be entertained. " this clause governs three kinds of lands. They are as follows:- (i) land which was previously held or which is being held under a quarry lease (ii) land in respect of which an order has been made for the grant thereof but the applicant has died before the execution of the lease deed and (iii) the land in respect of which the order granting lease has been revoked under sub-rule (4) of rule 11. The land in question in the instant case was latest out in two parcels to the persons as stated above earlier. It was therefore previously held by the lessees. One of the three alternative conditions therefore was satisfied in the instant case. In case of a part of the land which was held by Piraji Bhikaji Bhjara even the third alternative condition was satisfied because the renewed lease in respect of land held by him was revoked on 1st October 1975. It is clear therefore that the land question is government by rule 18 (1) (c ). Therefore in order to may it available for regard at under rule (1) (c) it was necessary for the State government to issue notification in the Official Gazette at least thirty days in advance. The first Argument which Mr. It is clear therefore that the land question is government by rule 18 (1) (c ). Therefore in order to may it available for regard at under rule (1) (c) it was necessary for the State government to issue notification in the Official Gazette at least thirty days in advance. The first Argument which Mr. Sompura has raised is that this rule is ultra vires sec. 15 of tree Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act 1957 under which it has been made. Sub-sec. (1) of sec. 15 provides as follows:"the State Government may by notification in the Official Gazette make rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith. " sub-sec. (2) and sub-sec. (3) of sec. 15 have no application to the present case. Sub-sec (1) confers upon the State Government power to make rules for regulating the grant of quarry leases in respect of minor minerals and for purposes connected therewith. In our opinion power to regulate the grant of a quarry lease necessarily carries with the power not to regrant a quarry lease for some time after it was once granted or granted and renewed thereafter. It is also necessary to remeember that the State Government has been given power under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 15 to makes rules for purposes connected inter alia with quarry leases. Whether a quarry lease should be regranted immediately upon the expiry of an earlier lease or it should not be regranted for some time is a matter which squarely falls within the power of the State Government to regulate the grant of quarry leases and also to take such other measures as are necessary for purposes connected with quarry leases. We are therefore unable to find that rule 18 (1) (c) is ultra vires sub-sec. (1) of sec. 15. ( 5 ) THE next part of the challenge is that rule 18 (1) (c) is ultra vires Art. 14 inasmuch as it does not specify the period during which notification in the Official Gazette shall be issued under rule 18 (1) (c ). Mr. Sompura has argued that omission on the part of the rule making authority to provide for a period of time confers upon the State Government an arbitrary and capricious power not to issue any notification for any length of time. Mr. Sompura has argued that omission on the part of the rule making authority to provide for a period of time confers upon the State Government an arbitrary and capricious power not to issue any notification for any length of time. According to him therefore rule 18 (1) (c) inasmuch as it suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and caprice is ultra vires Art. 14. We find no substance in this argument raised by Mr. Sompura. In the first instance no one has a right to say that a certain Government proparty shall be leased out. The question of undue or Bastille discrimination may arise if the State Government capriciously grants lease in respect of its property to one and denies to another. But if the State Government takes a decision not to lease out its property to any one either for all time to come or for some time it cannot be said that refusal on the part of the State Government to do so is hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution. It is in that context that we have stated that no one has a right to demand that a property belonging to the State shall be leased govt. In the instant case it is unfortunate that the State Government has not filed any affidavit in reply to show the rationale underlying rule 18 (1) (c ). We have been left to ourselves to find that rule 18 (1) (c) is otherwise rational. Once a land is leased out for removal of a minor mineral whether it should be regranted or not for a similar purpose may depend upon the evaluate or otherwise of a minor mineral or adequate availability or otherwise of a minor mineral in thai area. It may depend upon other natural factors as with Whether a river bank which is full of sand as in this case should be stripped barren of it and exposed to river water particularly in times of goods is a matter for the State Government to consider. Therefore the power which was been conferred upon the State Government under rule 18 (1) (c) is a reasonable power in as much as it gives the State Government an opportunity to decide after inter alia taking into account the natural factors obtaining in a particular area whether that area should be released or should not be raced. Therefore the power which was been conferred upon the State Government under rule 18 (1) (c) is a reasonable power in as much as it gives the State Government an opportunity to decide after inter alia taking into account the natural factors obtaining in a particular area whether that area should be released or should not be raced. therefore it is difficult to say that rule 18 (1) (c) suffers from the vice of arbitrariness or caprice. If in a given case power has not been exercised under rule 18 (1) (c) for reasonable period of time are if it is established that power ought to have been exercised within a particular period of time the Court may issue a writ of land must directing the State Government to exercise that power. Therefore though omission to specify a particular period in the impugned rule only give rise to a cause of action for instituting a petition for a writ of mandarins it certainly does not vitiate the rule. In our opinion therefore rule 18 (1) (c) does not suffer from any infirmity. It is ultra vires Art. 14. The first contention raised by Mr. Sompura therefore fails and is rejected. ( 6 ) THE second contention which Mr. Sompura has raised relates to the notifications which the state Government has issued after the petitioner made application to the State Government for granting him quarry lease in respect of the land in question. ( 7 ) THE facts of the case show that between 9th October 1978 and 4th March 1979 permits were granted to the petitioner eleven times for removing sand which is a minor mineral from the land in question. However he waited a regular lease for a longer period of time and not mere ad hoc permits. Therefore on 18th September 1979 he made a fresh application to the State Government for granting bin lease of the land in question for removing sand. Now it appears that notification under rule 18 (1) (c) was issued on 30th August 1979 in respect of a part of the land in question. It was however not published in the Official Gazette. Therefore it became infructuous. It appears that the petitioner made third application on 3rd October 1979. Now it appears that notification under rule 18 (1) (c) was issued on 30th August 1979 in respect of a part of the land in question. It was however not published in the Official Gazette. Therefore it became infructuous. It appears that the petitioner made third application on 3rd October 1979. It was rejected on 6th February 1980 On 26th November 1979 the State Government issued two notifications and published them in the Official Gazette on 6th December 1979. These two notifications in terms stated that the land in question would be available for regrant of lease after 31st December 1979. The distance of time between the date of publication of these two notifications in the Official Gazette and 31st of December 1979 was 24 days Rule 18 (1) (c) inter alia provides that no area shall be available for regrant of leases unless the date from which the area shall be available for regrant is notified in the Official Gazette at least thirty days in advance. In the instant case as stated above the notifications were not published in the Official Gazette at least thirty days in advance. They were published only 24 days in advance. Therefore the notifications issued by the State Government were not validly published in the Official Gazette on 6th December 1979 Therefore those notifications are liable to be quashed. ( 8 ) IN the result we uphold the second contention raised by Mr. Sompura and declare that notifications published on 6th December 1979 under rule 18 (1) (c) of Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules 1966 are not valid as they do not comply with the provisions of rule 18 (1) (c ). They are therefore struck down. ( 9 ) A writ of mandamus shall issue directing the respondents to desist and forbear from enforcing those two notifications. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs in the Circumstances of the case. We may however state that the State Government shall be at Liberty to issue and public fresh notifications in accordance with the provisions of rule 18 (1) (c) of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules 1966. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs. .