Honble TIBREWAL, J.–By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking a mandamus to declare Notification dated, October 6, 1994 (Annexure-15), issued by the Government of Rajasthan in exercise of power conferred by Rule 65-A of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short the Rules of 1986) as invalid on the ground of being arbi-trary and beyond legal competence of the State Government. In the course of arguments, much stress has been made to set aside clause (9) of the Notification. Further prayer is consequential to quash and set aside the two letters dated 19.10.94 issued by the Mining Engineer, Jaipur, rejecting the applications made by the petitioner for grant of mining lease. (2). The Notification in question is, in fact, a new policy prescribing the procedure for grant of mining lease/quarry licence for marble, including serpentine/green marble etc. The salient features of the new policy are : (i) delineation of plots of prescribed size by the Government for granting mining lease/quarry in the government land; (ii) size of plots to be of 2.25 hectares. The size of plots could be changed by the Director for reasons to be recorded in writing; (iii) the plots so delineated to be notified for grant of mining lease/quarry licence by the Director with prior approval of the government; (iv) it restricts that no person shall acquire an area exceeding 4.50 hectares in the entire State; (v) It also provides the procedure of selection when there are two or more applicants for the same plot. (3). The petitioners case is that he made two applications on 25.6.94 for thegrant of mining lease of marble mineral over an area of 100 x 100 Sqr. Meters and they were registered at No. 183/94 and 184/94. Thereafter, he was asked to submit certain documents/information which were supplied by him. No objection certificate issued by the Forest Department to the effect that the area does not fall in forest area and `No objection Certificate of the Collector, Jaipur for grant of Mininglease were also submitted by him. However, the applications were rejected on 19.10.94 as per Clause (9) of the new policy. (4). As stated earlier, the new policy has been issued by the State Government in exercise of power conferred by Rule 65-A of the Rules of 1986. However, the applications were rejected on 19.10.94 as per Clause (9) of the new policy. (4). As stated earlier, the new policy has been issued by the State Government in exercise of power conferred by Rule 65-A of the Rules of 1986. This rule was introduced on January 23, 1992 and it reads as under : ``65-A. Grant of mining leases by adopting procedure different from the given in the Rules–Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, Government may, by notification in the Rajasthan Gazette, adopt any method or procedure different from that provided in the rules for leasing out mineral deposit in the interest of mineral develo- pment. (5). The vires of Rule 65-A, was challenged before a Division Bench of this Court in Rajsamand Chambers of Commerce and Industry vs. State of Rajasthan (1). This Court repelled the arguments observing as under :– 4. It is contended that by inserting Rule 65-a in 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 & Develop- ment) 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 res- pect of certain minerals to meet with the exigency of the situation. Such power could be assumed by the Government even if the Rule has 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. 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 Gov- ernment 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 accep- ted. 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 powers 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 po- wer, the conferment of power does not become illegal or void. It may be that in the given circumstances, particular action may have been taken in unjust or arbitrary manner in that case, such action may be invalid. The framers of the Constitution and the legislature presume that the Authority on whom the power is conferred will always act in just, fair and reasonable manner. For this purpose on command and from the parliament or Legislature is necessary. It is the implicit assumption of our Constitution. Therefore, absence of guidelines in the Rules would not invalidate the provisions in the Rules. (6). The aforesaid view was reiterated in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2008/95, decided on May 25, 1995 (2), D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1944/95 (3) and D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1949/95, decided on 3.7.95 (4). (7). Confronted with the above situation, Shri N.K. Maloo learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that in the above judgments, the new policy has not been tested in the light of Sec. 15 of the Mines and Mineral Regulations and Development Act, 1957 (for short the Act of 1957). (7). Confronted with the above situation, Shri N.K. Maloo learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that in the above judgments, the new policy has not been tested in the light of Sec. 15 of the Mines and Mineral Regulations and Development Act, 1957 (for short the Act of 1957). According to the learned counsel, the grant of mining leases can be regulated by the rules and not by a notification, as such, the new policy/Notification dated 6.10.95 was beyond competence of the State Government. It is also contended that Clause (9) of the Notification is arbitrary and irrational and should be struck down. In the same sequence, further contention isthat the policy cannot be given retrospective effect by rejecting applications of the petitioner which were pending when Notification was issued by the State Government. Learned counsel also contended that new policy is arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Rules of 1986 and it deserves to be declared invalid and inoperative. (8). After giving my serious consideration to the above submissions, I find that none of the above submissions made by Shri Maloo has any merit. (9). With regard to first contention, it may be stated that Sec. 15 of the Act of 1957 provides for empowering the State Government, by notification in official gazette, to make rules for regulating grant of quarry lease, mining lease or othermineral concessions in respect of minor minerals and for purpose connected there-with. The impugned policy/Notification dated, October, 6, 1994 has been issued by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 65-A of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. It is not the case of the petitioner that Rule 65-A does not empower the State Government to issue suchnotification in the interest of mineal development. The Division Bench in the case of Rajsamand Chambers of Commerce and Industry vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) has ruled out the contention that by inserting Rule 65-A of the Rules, the entire body of the rules have been rendered nugatory or given a go-bye. It has been observed that by inserting Rule 65-A, the Government has merely provided a procedure diffe-rent from that provided under the rules for leasing out mineral deposits in the interest of mineral development. (10). It has been observed that by inserting Rule 65-A, the Government has merely provided a procedure diffe-rent from that provided under the rules for leasing out mineral deposits in the interest of mineral development. (10). In State of Tamil Nadu vs. M/s. Hind Stone and others (5), the vires of Rule 8-C introduced by the Government of Tamil Nadu in Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959, pursuant to the power vested in it u/S. 15 of the Act 1957,was challenged before the Madras High Court. Rule 8-C provided that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Rules on and from December, 1977, no lease for quarrying black granite shall be granted to private persons. It also provided that the State Government themselves may engage in quarrying black granite or grant lease of quarrying black granite in favour of any Corporation whollyowned by the State Government. When the above Rule 8-C was introduced, all applications for renewal of the leases were pending and in some cases aplications were made long before the date the Rule was introduced. There were also some applications for the grant of fresh lease for quarrying black granite. All the applications were dealt with after Rule 8-C came into force and all of them were rejectedin view of the Rule. Apart from challenging vires of Rule 8-C, it was also contended that the Rule did not apply to grant of renewal of a lease at all and also in those cases where applications for renewal had been made prior to coming into force of the Rule and their applications for renewal had been made prior to coming into force of the Rule and their applications should have been dealt with without refe-rence to Rule 8-C. The Madras High Court struck down Rule 8-C on the ground that it exhausted rule making power given to the State Government u/s. 15, which it was said, was only to regulate and not to prohibit the grant of mining lease. It was also observed that even if Rule 8-C was valid, it applied only to grant of fresh leases and not to renewals and that it was not open to the Government to keep applications pending for long time and then to dispose them of on the basis of a rule which had come into force later. It was also observed that even if Rule 8-C was valid, it applied only to grant of fresh leases and not to renewals and that it was not open to the Government to keep applications pending for long time and then to dispose them of on the basis of a rule which had come into force later. The Supreme Court, after considering the provisions of the Act of 1957, particularly Sections 4-A, 17 and 18, held that the rule making authority u/S. 15 has not exhausted. It has power in banning leases for quarrying black granite in favour of private persons and in stipulating that the State Government themselves may engage quarrying black granite or grant lease for quarrying black granite in favour of any Corporation wholly owned by the State Government. The Supreme Court also took into consideration that natural resources like rivers, forests and minerals constitute national wealth and these resources are not to be fritted awayand exhausted by any one generation. (11). After going through the new policy minutely I find the policy to be rational as it contains the doctrine of equality and is in the interest of mineral development. It has been rightly observed in the case of Rajsamand Chambers of Commerce and Industry (supra) by the Division Bench that the very nature of development of mine-rals and much more in respect of marble requires that certain conditions be imposed so that the national wealth which is in the shape of minerals is not fritted away. The conditions imposed as regards the area and installation of machinery and showing that the person making bid is capable of making some minimum investment are just and reasonable. In view of this, the first contention is convenien-tly rejected. (12). Now, I take up the much stressed contention with regard to clause (9) of the new policy. Clause (9) reads as under :- ``Pending applications–Applications which have not been disposed of till the date of issue of this notification, shall be rejected and appli- cation fee shall be refunded. The principal attack to this clause is that the policy has been given retrospective effect by rejecting the applications which were already pending for consideration. In my view, this contention has no merit. It is incorrect to say that by insertingClause (9), the new policy has been given retrospective effect. The principal attack to this clause is that the policy has been given retrospective effect by rejecting the applications which were already pending for consideration. In my view, this contention has no merit. It is incorrect to say that by insertingClause (9), the new policy has been given retrospective effect. By rejection of pending applications for grant of mining lease for marble, it cannot be said that the policy has retrospective effect. (13). The Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu vs. Hind Stone and others (supra), considered similar contention that applications for renewal pending sincelong before the date of application of Rule 8-C and also the applications for grant of leases made long before the said date should be dealt with as if the rule had not come into force. It has been ruled by the Supreme Court that pending of such applications does not clothe an applicant for a lease with a right to have the application disposed of on the basis of rules enforced at the time of making of theapplication. It has been observed :- ``No one has a vested right to the grant of renewal of a lease and none can claim a vested right to have an application for the grant of renewal of a lease dealt with in a particular way, by applying particular provisions. In the absence of any vested right in anyone, an applica- tion for a lease has necessarily to be dealt with according to the rules in force on the date of the disposal of the application despite the fact that there is a long delay since the making of the application. We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel that applications for the grant of renewal of leases made long prior to the date of G.O. Ms. No. 1312 should be dealt with as if Rule 8-C did not exist. (14). Applying the ratio of the above decision, the contention made by Shri Maloo cannot be accepted. Pendency of any application for grant of a fresh lease or renewal of a lease does not create a vested right in favour of the applicant and it can not be said that by rejection of such applications under clause (9) the new policy/Notification has been given a retrospective effect. The contention that clause (9) is arbitrary is also not acceptable being devoid of any merit. The contention that clause (9) is arbitrary is also not acceptable being devoid of any merit. After new policy came into force, grant of fresh lease or renewal of a lease in respect of marble including serpentine (green marble) etc. can be made as per the new policy/Notification. Renewal of a lease amounts to grant of fresh lease as renewal is not automatic. (15). Consequently, I do not find any merit in this petition. The petition is therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs in the facts and circums-tances of the case.