TIRATH S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) THE issues arising for determination in these two writ petitions are interrelated. The same have therefore been heard together for disposal by this common order. ( 2 ) THE petitioner secured a quarrying lease in respect of an area measuring around 8 acres situated in the villages of devanahalli and Guttahally on the outskirts of Bangalore City. The lease granted in the year 1984 was for a period of 5 years which was renewed for a further period of five years to end on 21st of June, 1994. The petitioner appears to have made an application for a further renewal on 8th of March, 1994, by which time the Government had by Notification dated 25th of june, 1993, reserved the area in question, for use by general public and forbidden the grant of any quarrying leases in respect of the same. The short notification issued on the subject reads thus:"notification: It is hereby notified under Rule 3 (2) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969, for the information of the General Public, that the area within a radius of (f k. m. around the Parvathagudda in Sy. No. 157 of Devanahally Taluk and Sy. Nos. 4 and 9 of guttahally in Devanahally Taluk, Bangalore District, is reserved for use by the public and for the purposes of performing religious activities, by the public, and that no quarrying lease shall be granted in respect of any land situated within this area. By Order and in the name of governor of Karnataka, sd/- (M. Katharaj) under Secretary to Government, commerce and Industries Department (Mines ). " ( 3 ) THE request for renewal of the lease was upon consideration by the Senior Geologist rejected by his order dated 29th June, 1994. A revision preferred against the said orders before the Director, Department of Mines and Geology also proved unsuccessful and was dismissed by his order dated 14th july, 1995. The Director gave three precise reasons for upholding the order under challenge before him. Firstly he found that the area in question had been reserved by the Government for the use of the general public and for performance of religious functions and activities in the ancient temples that existed on the hillock comprising the area. The Director gave three precise reasons for upholding the order under challenge before him. Firstly he found that the area in question had been reserved by the Government for the use of the general public and for performance of religious functions and activities in the ancient temples that existed on the hillock comprising the area. Secondly he found that the :ea in question was surrounded by human habitation besides large tracts of cultivable lands on all sides which was according to him likely to be affected by the quarrying and crushing operations being carried on by the petitioner. He next found that the original lease and its renewal had been granted without obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the Revenue authorities concerned which was an essential requirement and that the lessee having enjoyed the lease for a period of 10 years since 1984 was not entitled to any further renewal. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present petitions. In W. P. No. 28664 of 1995 the challenge is directed against the orders passed by the senior Geologist and the Director refusing to grant the renewal whereas in W. P. No. 26667 of 1993 the challenge is directed against the notification issued by the Government reserving the area in question for use by the general public. ( 4 ) MR. Narayana, learned Counsel for the petitioner confined his attack mainly to the notification reserving the area for general public use. This was understandable because if the reservation of the area is upheld, no quarrying lease in respect of any such area can be granted in the light of the prohibition contained in Rule 3 (2) of the K. M. M. C. Rules, 1969, as they stood before their repeal. Rule 3 of the said Rules runs thus:"rule 3. (1) No quarrying lease shall be granted to any person other than an Indian citizen, except with the prior approval of the. Government. (2) No quarrying lease shall be granted in respect of any land notified by Government as reserved for use by government or for any other public or special purpose. (3) No quarrying lease shall be granted in respect of any specified minor mineral, except with the prior approval of the Controlling Officer. (4) Quarries may, at the discretion of the Controlling officer, be leased out by calling for tenders or by holding public auction". (3) No quarrying lease shall be granted in respect of any specified minor mineral, except with the prior approval of the Controlling Officer. (4) Quarries may, at the discretion of the Controlling officer, be leased out by calling for tenders or by holding public auction". ( 5 ) A plain reading of the above provisions clearly shows that grant of a quarrying lease in respect of an area reserved by the government for public or other purposes is prohibited. The prohibition would obviously apply even to the grant of a renewal in respect of any old lease. The crucial question therefore is whether the reservation made by the Government in terms of the impugned notification suffers from any legal infirmity or defect of jurisdiction, for it is only if the reservation is removed from the scene that the petitioner's request for renewal could be considered or granted. ( 6 ) MR. Narayan, learned Counsel for the petitioner made a two-fold submission in support of the challenge to the notification. Firstly he argued that the notification had been issued arbitrarily and without due and proper application of mind thereby rendering the same offensive to Article 14 of the constitution. Secondly, he urged that the notification was violative of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the government had not before issuing the same, afforded to the petitioner any opportunity of being heard or showing cause as to why such a reservation be not made. I find no substance in either one of these two submissions. In the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondents, the background in which the impugned notification has been issued has been set out in detail. According to the respondents, the grant of the quarrying lease as also the crushing plants set up by the petitioner to crush the stones excavated from the leased area had given rise to numerous complaints from the local villagers inhabiting the area in the vicinity of the quarry. The villagers, it is stated had constituted a committee called Parvathagudda rakshana Samiti and carried on a relentless agitation against the grant and renewal of the quarrying lease and the continuance of the crushing operations in the crushing plants set up by the petitioner. The villagers, it is stated had constituted a committee called Parvathagudda rakshana Samiti and carried on a relentless agitation against the grant and renewal of the quarrying lease and the continuance of the crushing operations in the crushing plants set up by the petitioner. Environmental pollution on account of the crushing of the stones in the plant set up by the petitioner as also blasting of the hard rock with the help of detonators and gelatine by drilling holes upto a depth of 5 to 10 ft, and a general deterioration of the environment of the area on account of the operations carried on by the petitioner were cited by the villagers as the main reasons why the lease deserved to be terminated and the crushing operations forbidden. From the official Record produced in support of the objections filed by the respondents, it appears that besides environmental pollution caused by the operations undertaken by the petitioner, damage to three temples of Lord Veerabhadra Swamy, Sri Anjaneya swamy, and Sri Ramachandra, situate on the hillock also called paratagudda or Parvavagudda was cited by the villagers as a weighty reason for termination of the lease and the stoppage of the operations undertaken by the petitioner. The record further shows that with a view to verifying the veracity of the complaints made by the villagers, the Senior Geologist, accompanied by his technical staff had conducted a detailed inspection of the hillock on 5th of November, 1992 and submitted a comprehensive report to the Director. From the report it transpires that the hillock is situate about 2 kms from devanahalli town and rises to a level of 150-200 ft. Mythologically Parvatagudda is said to be an important place because of the three temples mentioned earlier being located on the same. Geologically the hill forms a monolithic outcrop of peninsular granite genesis in the form of gigantic batholith cut across by a basic dyke in two parallel injections with a well defined razor edge contact. The hill which measures about 40. 00 acres, as per the Revenue Records is a grazing land for many heards of cattle and sheep and is often trekked by local villagers as a through fare for pedestrians. The surrounding region all round the hills is cultivable where poor sections of the farmers with land holdings ranging from half to three acres grow crops of varied types. 00 acres, as per the Revenue Records is a grazing land for many heards of cattle and sheep and is often trekked by local villagers as a through fare for pedestrians. The surrounding region all round the hills is cultivable where poor sections of the farmers with land holdings ranging from half to three acres grow crops of varied types. Quarrying activities have been permitted to four quarrying lessees out of whom the petitioner alone was found to be active in excavation who had installed a massive crushing unit of 35 H. P. with a rated capacity of 8-10 tonnes per day. The excavating operations were carried on manually with the help of blasting techniques. The Senior Geologist also appears to have noticed the objections raised by the samithi, including the fact that heavy blasting was carried out by the existing quarry lease-holder without any specific signals and warning during unspecified hours causing panic and fear among the passers-by and grazing cattle with the result that most of the dwellings are abandoned and people have fled to safer places discarding their ground. On the basis of a spot inspection the Senior Geologist recorded his findings which speak for themselves and run thus:"the inspection brings to light sequence of facts and figures as observed on the field and relative causes for environmental imbalance. The existing quarry lease blocks of which M/s. Chousan Cements and Chemicals have installed a major crushing unit have their operations almost round the year. This is a very active quarry. The working area is within the 300-350' of the existing temple and is fast approaching danger zone. The national highway is also nearer wherein recent years the vehicular traffic are on increase. The quarry apart from the above one are on small scale operation. The crushing unit emits enormous quantity of dust causing the whole atmosphere polluted besides effecting plant growth. It is reported that the lessee adopts blasting operation frequently without any caution. xxx xxx xxx xxx a close study of the region reveals that the stone crushing industry is directly responsible for the atmospheric and environmental pollution, besides causing danger to the nearly temples which are of immense religious importance. As things stand the continued quarry operations have already polluted the neighbouring areas up to large extent causing hindrance for growth of plants as well as prevented the poor farmers from carrying on agricultural activities. As things stand the continued quarry operations have already polluted the neighbouring areas up to large extent causing hindrance for growth of plants as well as prevented the poor farmers from carrying on agricultural activities. As a result of heavy blasting menfolk do not dare to work in the fields anticipating threat to life. Hence they are all panic striken and have desisted from entering any where near the danger zone. True to their experiences there is absolutely no second opinion that most of them are either frightened or harassed by the devastating explosions. It is to be noted that a large number of farmers not only work in the field they also depend on this hill top and surrounding area for shelter and grazing of cattle as grass and other shrubs grow luxuriantly on the hill. Hence the hill provides food and shelter to large number of cattle and menfolk. Most of the dwellings which were near around the hill have been abandoned and people have fled to far off places. The construction of Sri Rama temple on the top of the hill is left half way and is incomplete due to disturbances caused by the quarrying activity. Most of the farmers entirely depend for their livelihood from agriculture and each one of them are experiencing hardships and misery and their very day to day survival is speculative. Further the location of the quarrying are nearer or to the national highway that there is absolutely no doubt in anticipating danger to the heavy vehicular traffic some day or the other. This has to be very seriously considered. " ( 7 ) THE Senior Geologist eventually recommended that in order to prevent the total degradation of the hill the lease which is almost one decade old should be cancelled and all blasting activities stopped to prevent damage to the historic monument like the temples situate on the hillock. He also recommended that an area of 1 km. radius around Parvathagudda be reserved against the grant of quarrying leases. On receipt of the report from the Senior Geologist, the Director of Department of Mines and Geology made a recommendation to the Government by his letter dated 17th January, 1993, for reservation of an area lying within a radius of one km from Parvathagudda for use by the general public and forbidding grant of any quarrying lease within the said area. Consequent upon the said recommendation, the Government issued the impugned notification reserving the area and forbidding any quarrying operations in the same. ( 8 ) FROM the above it is apparent that the decision to reserve the area in question was necessitated by the compelling need to prevent deterioration of the environment in the vicinity of the quarrying area on account of the excavation and crushing operations undertaken by the petitioner and particularly to restore peace and tranquility in the area by removing the cause for the blasting operations undertaken by the petitioner with the help of detonators and gelatine. The decision was also actuated by the need to preserve the three temples located on the hillock which were visited by the people from the adjoining areas for worship and also for performance of other religious activities. The decision, it is obvious was taken on the basis of factors that are relevant and material that justified an order of reservation. It is therefore difficult to appreciate how any such decision can be questioned on the ground of arbitrariness as was the attempt made by Mr. Narayan. A decision which is taken on the basis of relevant material and considerations and is not influenced by any collateral or extraneous reasons cannot be assailed on the ground that the same is arbitrary particularly when there is no palpable irrationality in the decision which is meant to serve the larger public good by protecting environment and providing security to the inhabitants of the area against what was indeed a dangerous activity of blasting the rocks with the help of explosives like gelatine and detorators. I have therefore no difficulty in rejecting the first limb of Mr. Narayan's argument. ( 9 ) THAT brings me to the alternative submission made by Mr. Narayan, that the impugned notification was legally bad being in violation of the principles of natural justice. The argument is that the decision to reserve the area in question was bound to affect the petitioner adversely in that its application seeking a renewal of the lease of was bound to be rejected in case the area was ordered to be reserved. No such adverse consequence qua the petitioner could according to Mr. Narayan flow from any executive or statutory order without the same being preceded by an opportunity of being heard to it. No such adverse consequence qua the petitioner could according to Mr. Narayan flow from any executive or statutory order without the same being preceded by an opportunity of being heard to it. The reservation of the area it was contended was in terms of Rule 3 (2) of the K. M. M. C. Rules, 1969 and therefore an exercise statutory in character which made it all the more necessary fpr the authority exercising such a power to issue a notice to the petitioner before making any such order. ( 10 ) THE power to reserve an area for use by the Government or for any other public or special purpose is a part of the general executive power enjoyed by the State under Article 162 of the constitution. All that Rule 3 (2) of the K. M. M. C. Rules, 1969, does is that it forbids the grant of a quarrying lease in respect of any land notified by the Government fpr any such use. It is not as though the power to reserve flows only from Rule 3 (2 ). Even in the absence of any such provision, the power to identify an area to be used for public or any special purpose is vested in the government and could be invoked by it in appropriate situations. Any such reservation cannot therefore be said to be a reservation made under any specific statutory provision. The obvious distinction between an order passed by the Government in exercise of its general Executive power on the one hand and the recognition of any such order by a statutory provision on the other shall have to be constantly borne in mind. When viewed thus, the argument advanced by Mr. Narayan that the power to reserve an area for use by the Government or by the public is a statutory exercise does not appear to me to be sound enough to merit acceptance. ( 11 ) THE next question then is whether while exercising any such executive power, the Government was under an obligation to grant an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, merely because the petitioner had made an application under the k. M. M. C. Rules for the grant of a renewal of its lease. ( 11 ) THE next question then is whether while exercising any such executive power, the Government was under an obligation to grant an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, merely because the petitioner had made an application under the k. M. M. C. Rules for the grant of a renewal of its lease. The right to apply for a renewal of a lease is recognised and regulated by rule 16 of the Rules aforementioned, which may be extracted in extenso for ready reference. "rule 16. (1) A quarrying lease may be granted for a period not exceeding ten years. The lease may be renewed for one or more periods, the period of each renewal not exceeding the duration of the original lease. (2) An application for the renewal of a quarrying lease shall be made at least 90 days before the expiry of the lease to the Competent Officer in Form F and such application shall be disposed by the Competent Officer before the expiry of the lease period and if the application is not disposed of within that period, it shall be deemed to have been refused". ( 12 ) A plain reading of the above shows that the rule does not recognise any vested or indefeasible right of renewal in the lease holder. The word 'may' used in sub-rule (1) of Rule 16 clearly signifies that the authority competent to grant a renewal is under no obligation to grant such a renewal merely for the asking. All that can perhaps be said is that an application for renewal of a lease is on a slightly better footing than an application for the grant of a fresh lease in that while in the case of a fresh lease, the applicant has no right to claim such a lease, in the case of a renewal of a subsisting lease, he has a legitimate expectation that all other parameters remaining the same the renewal prayed for shall be granted. Dealing with a similar question this Court had in Smt. Rathnamma v A. Krishnappa and Others, an occasion to state the legal position thus:"renewal of the leases is regulated by Rule 16 of the k. M. M. C. Rules, 1969, as it existed at the relevant point of time. A plain reading of the rule shows that the same does not recognise any vested right of renewal in the lessee. A plain reading of the rule shows that the same does not recognise any vested right of renewal in the lessee. All that the rule provides is that a lease may be renewed for one or more periods, each renewal not exceeding the duration of the original lease. It is at best: an enabling provision without creating any enforceable obligation for the Competent Authority to necessarily exercise the power in any particular fashion. That however is not conclusive of the matter. What is important is that even in the absence of any statutory recognition of the right to secure a renewal the lessee is entitled to legitimately expect that all other things remaining unaltered, there is no reason why the renewal applied for should not be granted. The doctrine of 'legitimate Expectation' rests on the principle that even when the citizen has no right stricto-sensu, he may still have a basis and a justification which may entitle him to claim relief in an appropriate action. Whether or not there is any such basis or justification for the expectation to legitimately arise would vary from case to case but once it is found that the expectation was legitimate it gives rise to two distinct legal consequences. Firstly the claim based on any such expectation cannot be denied without affording to him an opportunity of being heard in the matter. Stated differently the principles of natural justice are attracted to the process of determination of any right based on any such expectation. Secondly, the authority dealing with the question ought not to defeat the legitimate expectation without some overriding reason of public policy to justify its doing so. This obligation flows from the duty cast upon the public authority to act fairly by taking into consideration all relevant factors relating to any such legitimate expectation. See Navhyoti Co-operative Group housing Society etc. v Union of India and Others, Food corporation of India v M/s. Kamdhanu Cattle Feed industries and State of Kerala and Others v KG. Madhavan Pillai and Others. "it follows that even the legitimate expectation can be defeated by an overriding public purpose subject only to the condition that while doing so, the authority dealing with the application for renewal, must afford to the applicant a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. Madhavan Pillai and Others. "it follows that even the legitimate expectation can be defeated by an overriding public purpose subject only to the condition that while doing so, the authority dealing with the application for renewal, must afford to the applicant a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. An opportunity of being heard by the Authority dealing with a request for renewal is however different from an opportunity of being heard before taking an administrative decision reserving an area for Government or public use. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant case is not against the denial of an opportunity of being heard at the time of consideration of its application for renewal for it is not in dispute that the petitioner had been heard by the Competent authority considering its application and even by the Revisional authority before whom the order of refusal was questioned. The grievance on the other hand is against the denial of a similat opportunity of being heard by the Government while considering and eventually issuing the impugned notification of reservation. No such hearing was in my opinion necessary in a matter that fell in the realm of executive or administrative policy of the state Government. It would indeed be an artificial extension of the principles of audi alteram partem if it were to be held that the same apply even in regard to an administrative policy decision taken by the State Government such as the one in the present case reserving an area for any general or special purpose. Merely, because any such administrative decision would affect those desiring to apply for a fresh lease or a renewal of an existing lease would not in my opinion be sufficient for the extension of the doctrine to any such decision. The obligation to hear must arise from the nature of the decision and the nature of the power exercised more than the ultimate effect of any such decision proximate or otherwise. This is particularly so in the instant case where the right to apply for renewal must in the very scheme of the rules be deemed to be subject to the area in respect of which such renewal is applied for being available for grant. This is particularly so in the instant case where the right to apply for renewal must in the very scheme of the rules be deemed to be subject to the area in respect of which such renewal is applied for being available for grant. If in terms of Rule 3 an area is not available for grant of a quarrying lease or for the renewal of the existing lease, no right to seek a renewal in respect of any such area can arise or be recognised under Rule 16. Rule 16 pre-supposes the availability of the area over which the lessee seeks a renewal. In otherwords rule 16 must be interpreted to be subject to the provisions of rule 3 for it goes without saying that de hors Rule 3 a renewal under Rule 16 would be clearly impermissible. Suffice it to say that the very right on the basis of which the petitioner claims an opportunity of being heard is subject to an order of reservation made by the Government and recognised by Rule 3. The peti- tioner cannot by an inverse process of reasoning claim a right of hearing against the making of an order of reservation or question any such reservation on the ground that the same was made without granting him any such opportunity. In the circumstances therefore the notification issued by the Government reserving the area for general public use cannot be assailed by the petitioner on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. The challenge to the said notification must therefore fail and so also Writ Petition No. 26667 of 1993. ( 13 ) COMING then to Writ Petition No. 28664 of 1995, which is directed against the order passed by the Senior Geologist and that passed by the Director dismissing the revision against the said order, it is apparent that both these orders inter alia proceed on the basis that the area in question is no longer available for, grant of a quarrying lease. That reason is flawless and so also is the reliance upon the same by the respondents for, if the area in respect of which the renewal is sought, is no longer available, for the grant of a lease either fresh or by renewal, the prayer for any such grant has to be rejected and was rightly rejected in the circumstances of the present case. ( 14 ) IN the result, both these petitions fail and are here by dismissed but in the circumstances without any orders as to costs. --- *** --- .