JUDGMENT D.Raju, C J. : These writ petitions, namely, C.W.Ps. No. 506,517, 519, 520, 521, 523 and 524 of 1998, are dealt with together since they raise identical issues except certain deviations in respect of individual factual details which do not matter for the manner of consideration required, and also for the fact that the learned counsel appearing on either side had also made common submissions highlighting the facts in only one case for the appreciation of the issues raised. C.W.P.No.506 of l99R In mis writ petition, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari seeking to quash the order of the second respondent Director of Industries, Shimla, dated 18.7.1998 recalling with, immediate effect the grant of Mining Lease made by the proceeding date 6.11.1997 for collection of Sand. Stone and Bajri from Khasra No. 61 and 254/60, measuring 483-16, situated at Mauja Satiwala and Bheral, Tehsil Paonta, District Sirmaur, HP. and for a consequential direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner in terms of the grant order dated 6.11.1997. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was granted with a lease of the very quarry in question in the year 1995 for a period of one year, that thereafter he was working the quarry by obtaining the short term permits and that pursuant to an application (undated) for the grant of mining lease, after following the procedure prescribed therefore by an order dated 6.11.199.7 the second respondent has granted the mining case under Himachal Pradesh Minor Mineral (Concession) Revised Rules, 1971 (hereinafter re- fared to a Minor Mineral Roles) subject to die terms and conditions as also in consideration of die amount payable as specified therein. The petitioner further claims that one of the conditions of the grant is mat he shall execute the mining lease deed on non-judicial stamp papers worth Rs. 480/- in Form ‘F’ and submit five copies of the same along with revised revenue map of the area duly complete in all respects to the second respondent The petitioner claims that on 19.12.1997 he purchased the required stamp papers, got the lease deed engrossed thereon and submitted the same on 20.12.1997 and thereby discharged his part of obligation in this regard. Notwithstanding all this and the efforts taken, according to the petitioner the respondents, particularly, the second respondent has not carried out their part of the obligations and has chosen to pass the impugned order dated 18.7.1998 recalling the grant earlier made due to non-execution of the mining lease deed under Rule 19 of the Minor Mineral Rules within the stipulated time and for the reason that the relaxation from the rigour of the rule has been disallowed by the State and, therefore, cannot be granted in favour of the petitioner. According to the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner had adhered to all the conditions stipulated in the grant order, that he had invested huge amounts for putting mineral based industry, mat is, stone crusher, mat the amount of payment of minimum royalty assured is on the previous auction bid with 30% annual increase which has to be fixed by the Mining Officer, Nahan with such increase every year, that his application being the first, he was entitled to the grant of mining lease as per rule of priority, mat die applicants who made claims latter did not made any competitive offer of rates more than the petitioner and mat after the submission of the lease deed on 20.12.1997 a common representative m respect of all the six cases relating to the grant in Giri and Yamuna River areas have been representing for the completion of the formalities and despite subsequent personal approaches and representations made nothing was done on the side of the respondents and therefore, if at all it is only the respondents who are at fault and the petitioner could not be found fault with or fixed with any lapse in this regard and mis aspect of the matter was also folly borne out by the inter- departmental communication dated 29.6.1998 filed as Annexing P-l 1 and that therefore, the impugned order is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, the impugned order has the consequence of depriving and divesting the petitioner of his substantial and valuable rights acquired by him by virtue of the grant and inasmuch as there is no violation of Rule 19 of the Minor Mineral Rules or any of the conditions of the grant which could be attributed to the petitioner, there was no basis or justification in law for recalling the earlier order granting the tease in favour of the petitioner. It is also contended mat recalling of the grant which has me effect of revocation of the lease earlier granted could not have been without issuing a proper show cause notice and giving an opportunity to the petitioner and mat the State Government also cannot refuse to execute the lease deed even after the expiry of the period of three months stipulated under Rule 19 of the Minor Mineral Rules in the absence of any fault or lapse as such on me part of me petitioner and that the respondents could not take advantage of their own lapse and fault to deny the rights of the petitioner. 3. Notice has been ordered in me writ petition as well as application for stay and the respondents have entered appearance and filed their reply con-tending that the auction held in the year 1995 for Yamuna river bed area in respect of the quarry question was no doubt granted in favour of me petitioner for Rs. 11,00,000/- per annum for the period from 8.9.1996 to 7.9.1997, that thereafter on a joint request made by the present petitioner and others short term permit basis permission to collect sand, stone and Bajri from the said river bed was granted for 30% annual increase on the previous bid, that the earlier contract as well as short term permit were granted in joint name only, that though die. petitioner submitted the lease deed it was incomplete and that the, amount of minimum royalty, which was to be fixed by the Mining Officer, Nahan was not got fixed by him and entered in condition No. 16 part V of the, lease deed and thereby the lease deed submitted was found to be incomplete, that there had been no doubt joint inspection of the land conducted by the representatives of the different departments in terms of the procedure in vogue, that the claim of the petitioner that lie had commenced working of the quarry is incorrect since the currency of lease starts from the date of execution of lease deed in terms of Rule 19, that the petitioner failed to get minimum royalty to be paid calculated and certified from the Mining Officer, Nahan, before submitting the lease deed as envisaged in Condition No. 13 of the grant order -and that the petitioner alone - made his application for the grant in question. and there was no offer made by the department to any one and M/s Brij Bhushan Joshi, Mukesh Arora, Kapil Dev Joshi And Abhishek Bhandari filed an affidavit on 24.6.1998 only when they affirmed therein to work the mines in question at 100% above insead of 30% and that the short term, permit ... permission was given and contitued after the expiry of the earlier contract at the request of the petitioner and that the petitioner, did not contact the office after submission of the papers of his lease deed and since the documents submitted were not complete for consideration,-^ is on account of such lapse only the petitioner disabled himself from the authorities considering his claim so for finalisation of the lease deed. The further stand of the respondents is that none of the petitioner or his representative has. ever approached any officer of j, the Department regarding the execution of the lease deed within the prescribed period of three months and that the deposit of surface rent by the petitioner was on his own and not on the directions of the respondents and the petitioner is not entitled to either rely upon or base his claim of rights on an interdepartmental correspondence dated 29.6.1998 which was never meant to be or actually communicated to him. Though the second respondent referred the matter to die Government for consideration of the claim under Rule 19 of the Rules, the first-respondent-Government considered the same and rejected the claim and consequently no exception could be taken to the orders passed for recalling grant of mining lease earlier made. It is also contained that the area in question with other parts of Yamuna and Gin rivers were directed by the first respondent to be put in public auction to fetch better revenue to the . Government and mat respondents No. 2 and 3, therefore, have initiated steps to put the quarries in open public auction with an initial bid of Rs. 35,10,000/-per annum as offered by M/s B.B. Joshi, Mukesh Arora, Kapil Dev Joshi and Abhishek Bhandari as against the lease amount of Rs. 17,55,000/- per annum offered by the petitioner and others. Reference is also made to the opinion tendered by the Law Department of the Government that the land in question where mines are located/attract the provisions of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and even after auction prior permission of the Government of India would be required before actual grant is made and that a condition to that extent is to be incorporated along with other terms and conditions of the auction. The other allegations accusing the departmental authorities of any lapse or imputing motives 10 them were also stoutly denied. The proceedings of the Government dated 4.7.1998 stating that the Government is not in favour of granting relaxation of the rules for the execution of lease deeds which have not been executed within the prescribed tune limit and that the decision of the Government has taken earlier to give the areas in question on lease has been reviewed by the Government and it has since been decided that there areas must be put to auction as was being done heither-to-fore in order to fetch better revenue to the Government with a further direction to take steps in this regard came to be filed as an annexure to the reply. The third respondent also filed a supplementary reply enclosing certain orders and relevant proceedings which would help a proper decision of the case. The third respondent also filed a supplementary reply enclosing certain orders and relevant proceedings which would help a proper decision of the case. A further supplementary reply was also filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 contending that the respondent-State grants mineral concession as per rules and when two or more parties are interested to any area the best way of disposing the claim is to put the area in open public auction to enable any one from the public to participate in auction to fetch a competative price and better revenue to the State and that so far as the area under dispute in this writ petition is concerned more parties are interested to take the mines for working and the persons noticed earlier have offered an initial bid of Rs. 28,60,000/- for Yamuna river and Rs. 6,50,000/- for Giri river and "in furtherance of their commitment they have already .deposited 50% of the amount and as per the conditions of the auction the areas will be put to auction with such amount specified as the initial bid with liberty to every one to participate in the said auction and the action taken by the department in the best interest of the revenue of State cannot claimed to be vitiated in any manner either in law or otherwise and therefore, the petitioner does not deserve for any relief to be granted in his favour . 4. The writ petitioner has filed a-rejoinder reiterating the claims made in the writ petition and challenging the auction of the respondents in putting the mines in question by open auction contending that the said auction is illegal. C.W.P. Na.517nf199R 5. The petitioner in this writ petition seeks for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceeding dated 18.7.1998 recalling the grant of mining lease made in his favour under the grant order dated 6.11.1997 and consequently direct the respondent to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner in terms of the earlier grant order dated 6.11.1997 for collection of sand, stone and bajri from Khasra No. 530/537, comprised in the area measuring 604-16 Bighias, situated at Mouja Mhakampur Nabada, Tehsil Paonta, District Sirmaur . C.W.P.No.5WnfI998 6. C.W.P.No.5WnfI998 6. The petitioner in this writ petition seeks for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the order dated 18.7.1998 recalling the grant of mining lease by an earlier order dated 6. 11.1997 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to execute the lease deed in favour of the petitioner in terms of the grant order dated 6.11.1997 for collection of sand, stone and bajri from Khasra No. 924/549/941/550, comprised in an area of 219-02 Bighas, situated at Mouja Shampur and Gorakhuwala, Tehsil Paonta, District Sirmaur. C.W.P. No. 520 of 1998. 7. The petitioner m this writ petition seeks for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceeding dated IS.?. 1998 recalling the grant of mining lease made in his favour under the grant order dated 6.11.1997 and for a consequential direction is the nature of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to execute the lease deed in his favour in terms of the earlier grant order dated 6.11.1997 for collection of mineral sand, stone and Bajri from Khasra No. 61 and 254/60, comprised m an area of 483-16 Big has, situated in Mauja Satiwala, Tehsil Paonta, District Sinnaur, C.W.P. No. 521 of 1998 8. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceeding of the second respondent dated 18.7.1998 recalling the grant of mining lease made in his favour under the grant order dated 6.11.1997 with a consequential relief of a direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to execute the lease deed in his favour in terms of the grant order dated 6.11,1997 for collection of mineral, sand, stone and bajri from Khasra No. 530/357/1, 116, 366/283/153, 152,, 252/285/153, 390/285/153, 391/285/153 and 337, comprised in an area, of 982.05 Bighas, situated at Mouja Mohakampur, Ambwala, Singhpur, Rampur Ghat told Xumja, Tehsil Paonta, District Sinnaur. C.W.P.No.523ofl998 9. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceeding of the second respondent dated 18.7.1998 recalling the grant of mining lease made in his favour under the grant order dated 6.11.1997 with a consequential relief of a direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to. execute the lease deed in his favour in terms of the grant order dated 6.11.1997 for collection of mineral, sand, stone and bajri from Khasra Nos. 54,55, 197 , 404/l98,191,174,581/463/170,167 and 168, comprised in an area of 1913-08 Bighas, situated at Ganguwal, Bhappjir, Devi Nagar, Tehsil Paonta, District Sinnaur. C.W.P.No.524ofl998 10. The petitioner in this writ petition seeks for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings dated 18.7.1998 recalling the grant of mining lease made in his favour under the grant order dated 6.11.1997 and for a consequential direction in the nature of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to execute the lease deed in his favour in terms of the earlier grant order dated 6.11.1997 for collection of mineral sand, stone and bajri from Khasra No. 66,59,97,998,304/207, comprised in an area of 5408-03 Bighas, situated at Mouja Paharwala, Majri, Gojar Addayan, Bhagani, Guruwala, Tehsil Paonta, District Sinnaur. 11. Except certain individual details and the amounts offered etc. as also the details in respect of die extent actually comprised in the mining area granted covered by the leases the claims made in respect of the petitioners in C.W.Ps. No. 517,519 to 521,523 and 524 of 1998 are identical and similar as claimed in C.W.P. No. 506 of 1998, including the contentions raised in support of their claims and therefore, we consider it unnecessary to repeat them once over again. The stand taken by the respondents is also almost similar and identical in nature as the one taken in C.W.P. No. 506 of 1998 and, therefore, these also need not be repeated once over again. 12. For the sake of completing the narration of facts it becomes absolutely necessary to bring on record certain subsequent developments which has taken place after the filing of the petitions. Pursuant to the order of the Government the authorities have proceeded with further action to bring the quarries in question in public auction. 12. For the sake of completing the narration of facts it becomes absolutely necessary to bring on record certain subsequent developments which has taken place after the filing of the petitions. Pursuant to the order of the Government the authorities have proceeded with further action to bring the quarries in question in public auction. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners during the initial stage as well as when the matter was part-heard on 10.9.1998 sought for staying further proceedings initiated for holding the public auction, keeping into .account certain unusual and eyebrow raising manner of events which occurred and procedure observed in according sanction for the lease on of the earlier occasion in favour of the petitioners for a paltry sum, we wanted to ascertain the realities of the situation by allowing the auction to go on without passing any interim prohibitory orders since by having such auction held no irreparable damage would be caused to the petitioners on account of the fact that the post- auction formalities to be observed would necessarily take some time by which if need be appropriate directions can be given. It is now seen from the representations orally made and the records made available by the learned Advocate General that the open auction held has yielded revenue, in manifold times more than the amounts offered by the petitioners on the earlier occasion while making an application for lease in private which came to be accepted, if we may say so, wishfully and without any proper or due application of mind in rackless manner unmindful of public interest involved in it deviating from the earlier practice of putting in public auction the very mines. From the files now produced, we are able to come across a statement wherein details of the amount that may be realised from the seven petitioners herein for the mining lease granted for the entire duration of five years. In respect of all the seven petitioners for the entire duration of five years the sum that is likely to be realised is stated to be Rs. 1,58,95,675/-. In respect of all the seven petitioners for the entire duration of five years the sum that is likely to be realised is stated to be Rs. 1,58,95,675/-. As against this from the copy of the proceeding of the Government dated 3.10.1998 in No. IND-II (F) 6-18/97 Industries Department emanating from the Financial Commissioner-cum- Secretary Industries to the Government to the second respondent-Director of Industries, it is seen that in respect of quarries described as Yamuna Part 1 to 8 the present highest bid appears to be Rs. 1.60 Crores for a period of one year alone and in addition thereof, in respect of Giri Nadi-II it has fetched a revenue of Rs. 76 lacs for one year alone. The previous bid in 1995 was Rs. 11 lacs as against the present bid of Rs. 1.60 Crores and Rs. 2,50,000/- as against the present bid of Rs. 76 lacs. The authorities while according the lease by way of private grant on an application made by the petitioners has chosen to grant the lease on 6.11.1997 for a sum calculated with an increase of 30%, as indicated earlier, on the previous bid amount. What is surprising in the matter which obliged us to allow the auction to go on to ascertain the sum the respective quarries may fetch is the action of the authorities which, in our view, is beyond comprehension and does not meet the reasonable eye is their move to grant the lease of the quarries in favour of the petitioners on applications submitted by them in privacy when the very quarries on the earlier occasion in 1995 have been put to public auction only and the indiffirence exhibited in entertaining a claim for granting a lease by direct or private deal without adopting the same and similar pattern of putting the very quarries to public auction once over again, notwithstanding the exorbitant all around increase in he rates and value of he minor mineral in question. 13. Mr. 13. Mr. Rajiv Kataria, from the Chandigarh Bar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously contended in his ellaborate submissions made that the petitioners could not be said to have been responsible in any manner for the delay or lapse in the non-execution^>f the lease deed within me stipulated period of three months as envisaged in Rule 19 of the Minor Mineral Roles and the lapse, if any, is on the part of respondents 2 and 3 and consequently the petitioners could not be penalised for such lapse of the respondents by recalling the grant earlier made. The action of the respondents in this regard is said to be arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and that the respondents have taken advantage of their own lapse and fault to penalise the petitioners. Argued the learned counsel further that the impugned orders recalling the earlier grant is bad in law so far as it results in deprivation of right in favour of the petitioners. It is also stated for the petitioners that once mining grant has been made in favour of the petitioners on 6.11.1997 and the petitioners stated working on the basis of the grant made valuable rights have accrued in their favour and such rights cannot be taken away without issuing any show cause notice and giving an opportunity to the petitioners to explain about the alleged violation of Rule 19 though, according to the petitioners, only notice about the violation of Condition No. 9 alone has been given and not with reference to alleged violation of Rule 19. The learned counsel also tried to impress upon us, by relying upon the payment of surface rent and contending that after the deposit of such surface rent there was no authority for the respondents to cancel the lease granted. The learned counsel also tried to impress upon us, by relying upon the payment of surface rent and contending that after the deposit of such surface rent there was no authority for the respondents to cancel the lease granted. The learned counsel also contended that there had been no proper application of mind by the first respondent-State while exercising the power under Rule 19 of the Minor Mineral Rules and before rejecting the claim for relaxation from the rigour of the rules favourable recommended, by the authorities of the department, the Government has failed to record any finding that the lapse or default was due to the reasons attributable to the petitioner and unless any such finding is recorded there was no justification for the Government to refuse the extension of time by way of relaxation from the rigour of the rule and on this ground also the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 14. Per contra, the learned Advocate General as also the learned Deputy Advocate General, who argued the matters on different dates for the respondents, with equal force and vehemence contended that the petitioners alone were responsible for the default in finalising the transaction by executing the lease deeds complete in all respects and the perfunctory action by them by handing over incomplete lease deeds by itself is no sufficient compliance of the rules to shift their burden and responsibilities and therefore, the earlier grant stood automatically revoked by virtue of die operation of Rule 19 and no exception could be taken to the impugned orders passed by the second respondent in this regard, particularly, after the State Government has chosen to reject the request for relaxation from the rigour of Rule 19 in favour of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the respondents also contended that the public interest as also die interest of justice will be defeated if die claims of the petitioners is to be countenanced particularly, in die teem of such vast difference in die value of quarries as fetched in open auction and the negligible sum for which they managed on an earlier occasion to get die quarries by private deal by making an application for die purpose. The learned counsel for the respondents further contended that die petitioners have no vested rights -as such and they could not claim even before die execution of die lease deeds, complete in all respects to have commenced working die mines under die grants in question and it would be a grossly illegal act on their in part to assert such a claim. It is also urged for die respondents that no rules of priority can be pressed into service in their favour and that in the matter of grant of mining leases involving the State to part with the property rights in the natural resources of the community, public interest requires mat the best possible price must be realised for the public property and mat this Court may not be pleased to interfere at the instance of the petitioners who have no just cause or a reasonable and legal grievance to compel the respondent- authorities to enter into a contract with the petitioners despite the glaring infirmities and irregularities found noticed in the grant earlier made in their favour. 15. .v We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side. The main as well as substantial ground of challenge sought to be urged against the impugned order is that the exercise of power under Rule 19 of Minor Mineral Rules in the cases on hand was made in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner in utter disregard of the factual position and that the Government could not have refused permission to execute the lease deed even after the expiry of the stipulated period of three months without recording a finding that the petitioners were responsible for the delay in execution of the lease deed and that at any rate on the facts available on record not only the petitioners could not be held to be responsible for the delay in the execution of the lease deed but that it is only the authorities of the State who contributed and were responsible for such delay. It was also incidently contended that there had been no proper notice and effective opportunity to the petitioners before passing the impugned order to show cause against such decision. Rule 19 of the Rules reads as follows : "19. It was also incidently contended that there had been no proper notice and effective opportunity to the petitioners before passing the impugned order to show cause against such decision. Rule 19 of the Rules reads as follows : "19. Where a mining lease is sanctioned, the lease deed in Form F shall be executed within three months of the order sanctioning the lease and if the lease is not executed within the aforesaid period, the order sanctioning the lease shall be deemed to have been revoked and the application fee shall be forfeited to the Government: Provided that where the Government is satisfied that the application for the lease is not responsible for the delay in the execution of the lease deed the Government may permit the execution of the lease deed after the expiry of the aforesaid period of three months. The currency of lease shall be considered from the date of execution of lease." 16. A rule of similar nature in identical rules for the purpose in vogue in other States, has been the subject matter of consideration by their Lordships of the Apex Court and it is useful to refer to the same at this stage. 17. In S.A. Rasheed v. Director of Mines and Geology & Am., (1995) 4 S.C.C. 584, Rule 9(2) of Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969 came up for consideration. In paragraph 7 of the judgment, it has been observed as follows : . "A reading of sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 shows that the competent officer is empowered to grant quarrying lease to the appellant or to refuse the same on making such enquiries as he deem fit Sub-rule (2) says that. where a lease is granted under sub-rule (1), a formal lease deed shall be executed within three months of such order or within such further period as the competent officer m ay allow in that behalf. It further declares that if no such lease is executed within the aforesaid period the order sanctioning the lease shall be deemed to have been revoked. This sub-rule shows that the grant of lease under Rule 9 is complete and takes effect only when a lease deed is executed within the period prescribed aid uh m case the lease deed is not so .executed, the grant under sub-rule (1) stands revoked. The sub-rule is mandatory in nature. This sub-rule shows that the grant of lease under Rule 9 is complete and takes effect only when a lease deed is executed within the period prescribed aid uh m case the lease deed is not so .executed, the grant under sub-rule (1) stands revoked. The sub-rule is mandatory in nature. Rule 14(1) says that except with the prior approval of the controlling officer, no quarrying Hose shall be granted in the case of minor minerals for an area exceeding 60 hectrares (ISO acres). Rule 20 prescribes the conditions which shall attach to quarrying leases granted under the Rules. Rule 61 provides for a revision against the orders of the competent officer to the controlling officer; where the order is made by the controlling officer, the revision lies to the Government." 18. In Ajit Singh v. Union of India & Ors., 1995 Supp. (4) S.C.C. 224, their Lordships of the Apex Court in dealing with the nature of the rule and the consequences flowing out of non-compliance of the same observed as follows : "7. A perusal of the said provisions shows that after the grant of the mining lease, a formal lease is required to be executed within three months from the date of the receipt of the sanction by the applicant and if no such formal lease is executed within the said period, the order granting the lease has to be deemed to have been revoked. In the proviso JP sub-rule (1) of Rule 19, provision is made that the State Government or any officer authorised by the State Government to grant lease on its behalf, may permit execution of formal lease with in a reasonable time after the expiry of the aforesaid period of three months, if the State Government or such officer is satisfied that there are sufficient reasons to believe that the grantee is not responsible for the delay in the execution of the formal lease. In the present case, the applicability of the proviso does not arise and only the main part of sub-rule (1) of the Rule 19 has to be considered. 8. The period of three months has to be counted from the date of receipt of the sanction by the applicant and not from the date of the grant of mining lease. In the present case, the applicability of the proviso does not arise and only the main part of sub-rule (1) of the Rule 19 has to be considered. 8. The period of three months has to be counted from the date of receipt of the sanction by the applicant and not from the date of the grant of mining lease. The Central Government, in passing the Order dated 12.3.1987, has erroneously proceeded on the basis that the period of three months has to be counted from the date of grant of lease, i.e. 12.7.1982 and on that basis the Central Government has held that the deemed revocation would be operative on 12.10.1982. The Central Government has also expression the view that for the purpose of revocation of the grant under Rule 19, it is not necessary to pass any formal order by the State Government since deemed revocation would take place by operation of law after the expiry of the period of three months prescribed in Rule 19." 19. In yet another part of the judgment also their Lordships re-emphasised the position by stating that, "it is no doubt true that in view of the expression deemed revocation in Rule 19(1) of the 1977 Rules, revocation\ of the sanction is automatic on the expiry of the period of three months prescribed under Rule 19(1) except in cases where the period for execution of mining lease is extended under the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 19. Such a revocation has two consequences. In the first place, it terminates the right of the grantee of a mining lease flowing from such grant Secondly, it enables another person to obtain a mining lease in respect of the area covered by the grant which stands revoked. The other consequence involves third parties who wish to apply for grant of mining lease in respect of the area covered by the grant which stands revoked." Consequently, not only Rule 19 must be held to be mandatory in character but the revocation also having regard to the deeming expression must held to be automatic on the expiry of the period of three months as stipulated therein. Since the very rule mandates mat the currency of lease shall be considered to commence from the execution of the lease, it is futile for the petitioners to claim that they acquired any right to exploit the mine or that they have started exploiting the mine even on the basis of the grant order, which if they have been doing is a patent illegality and an unlawful act committed by them and apart from such admitted position exposing and making them liable to be proceeded against no rights or preferential claims can be projected on the basis of such illegal acts. Rule 21(1) which enumerates various conditions of mining lease also stipulate that except where the State Government for sufficient reasons, permits otherwise, the lessee shall commence mining operations within two months from the date of execution of the lease deed and shall thereafter conduct such operations without deliberate intermission in a proper skilful and workman-like manner and consequently could not have commenced any mining operations taking advantage of the mere grant order even before the execution of the lease as enjoined under Rule 19. 20. It now becomes necessary for us to consider about the applicability of the proviso to Rule 19 on which strong reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners to not only contend that the petitioners have not committed any lapse or default but also to contend mat if the Government is satisfied that the applicant for the lease is not responsible for me delay in the execution of the lease deed (according to the learned counsel for the petitioners such is the position in these cases) notwithstanding the use of the expression may permit the State Government had no discretion to refuse to permit and should have granted permission to execute the lease deed even after the expiry of the period of three months, construing the word may to mean shall. In order to mobilize and add further support for the benefits claimed, the learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that the petitioners applications being earlier in point of time are also entitled, by applying the rule of priority to be granted with the lease and such rights could not be ordinarily denied. In order to mobilize and add further support for the benefits claimed, the learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that the petitioners applications being earlier in point of time are also entitled, by applying the rule of priority to be granted with the lease and such rights could not be ordinarily denied. The provisions of the Mines Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, particularly Section 11 though envisaged a particular method of priority, having regard to Section 14 which enacts mat the provisions of Sections 5 to 13 (inclusive) shall not apply to quarry leases, mining leases and other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals, the general principle of priority on the basis of an application being earlier in point of time cannot be invoked in respect of quarry leases, mining leases or other mineral concessions in respect of minor minerals. The Apex Court even in the decision reported in Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Corpn. Ltd v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 818, also observed that mining leases cannot be given merely on first come, first served basis, That apart, Rule 10 of the Rules under our consideration does not also contemplate the application of such principle of priority on the mere basis of the applicant or his application being earlier in point of time. It is only the proviso to the said rule which stipulates that where two or more persons of the same category have applied for a mining lease in respect of the same land, the applicant whose application is received earlier shall have a preferential right for the grant of the lease over an application whose application is received later, while at the same time specially reserving the power of the Government where such applications are received on the same day to grant the mining lease to such one of the applicants as it deem fit after taking into consideration the matters enumerating in sub-rule (2) of Rule 10. Sub-rule (3) former enables the Government for special reasons to be recorded in writing to grant a mining lease to an applicant whose application is received later in preference to art applicant whose application is received earlier. Sub-rule (3) former enables the Government for special reasons to be recorded in writing to grant a mining lease to an applicant whose application is received later in preference to art applicant whose application is received earlier. Consequently, the question of any invariable application of rule of priority on the mere basis of an application being earlier in point of time does not arise and cannot be countenanced as per the scheme underlying Himachal Pradesh Minor Minerals (Concession) Revised Rules, 1971. The so called right sought to be asserted cannot also be countenanced for the further reason that in the context of the March as also development and fedration of law governing the grant of leases or right to expliot benefits or use of the public properties or disposal of public properties or rights in public properties. The Apex Court in the context of over-all growing tendency to fritter away substantial and valuable properties and right to expliot benefits arising out of such properties for poultry and i negligible sum in shady or under hand or secret and private deals has on more j! than one occasion emphasied the need and necessity for disposing of such rights only by public auction or by public invitation of tenders. In Haji TM. Hassan Rawther v. Kerala Financial Corporation, AIR 1988 S.C. 15 7, the Apex Court while restating the legal principles on a review of the case law on the subject held as hereunder: "8,,The only question that arises for consideration is whether on the facts and in the circumstances, the Corporation was not justified in selling the property by private negotiations in favour of M/s. Gumraj Plantations at the instance of P.M. Jacob. It is needless to state that the Government or public authorities should make all attempts to obtain the best available price while disposing of public properties. They should not generally enter into private arrangements for the purpose. It is needless to state that the Government or public authorities should make all attempts to obtain the best available price while disposing of public properties. They should not generally enter into private arrangements for the purpose. These principles may be taken as well established by the following decision of this Court: (i) K.N. Guruswamy v. State of Mysore (1955) 1 SCR 305 at p.312 : AIR 1954 SC 592 p. 595, (ii) Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr., New Delhi (1978) 2 SCR 272 : AIR 1978 SC851,(iii) R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCR 1014 : AIR 1979 SC 1628, (iv) Kasturi Lai Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (1980) 3 SCR 1338 : AIR 1980 SC 1992, (v) Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344, (vi) Ram andShyam Company v. State ofHaryana, 1985 Supp SCR 541 : AIR 1985 SC 1147 and (vii) Sachidanand Pandeyv. State of W.B., AIR 1987 SC 1109. 9. In R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCR 1014 at p. 1JJ41 : AIR 1979 SC 1628 at p. 1642, Bhagwati, J. speaking for the Court observed : "Now, obviously where a corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government, it would, in the exercise of its power or discretion, be. subject to the same constitutional or public law limitations- as Government. The rule inhibiting arbitrary action by Government which we have discussed above must apply equally where such corporation is dealing with the public whether by way of giving jobs of entering into contracts or otherwise, and it cannot act arbitrarily and enter into relationship with any person it likes at its sweet will, but its action must be in conformity with some principle which meets the test of reason and relevance. This rule also flows directly from the doctrine of equality embodied in Art. 14. It is now well settled as a result of decisions of this Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555 and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. It is now well settled as a result of decisions of this Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555 and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597, that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. It requires that State action must not be arbitrary but must be based on some rational and relevant principle which is non-discriminatory; it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant consideration, because that would be denial of equality. The principle of reasonableness and rationality which is legally as well as philosophically an essential element of equality or non- arbitrariness is protected by Art 14 and it must characterise every State action, whether it be under authority of law or in exercise of executive power without making of law. The State cannot, therefore, act arbitrarily in entering into relationship, contractual or otherwise with a third party, but its action must conform to some standard or norm which is retional and non-discriminatory." 10. In Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State o/J& K, (1980)3 SCR 1338 at p. 1355 : AIR 1980 SC 1992 at p. 1999, Bhagwati,J. against speaking for the Court reiterated what he said earlier in R.D. Shetty s case. The learned Judgment went on to state: "Every action taken by the Government must be in public interest, the Government cannot act arbitrarily and without reason and if it does, its action would be liable to be invalidated. If the Government awards a contract or leases out or otherwise deals with its property or grants any other largess, it would be liable to be tested for its validity on the touchstone of reasonableness and public interest and if fails to satisfy either test, it would be unconstional and invalid." The learned Judge continued (at p. 1357 of SCR ): (atp.2001 of AIR): "But one basic principle which must guide the Court in arriving at its determination on this question is that there is always a presumption that the Governmental action is reasonable and in public interest aid it is for the party challenging its validity to show that it is wanting in reasonableness or is not informed with public interest This burden is a heavy one and it has to be discharged to the satisfaction of die Court by proper and adequate material. The Court cannot lightly assume that title action taken by the Government is unreasonable or without public interest because as we said above, there are a large number of policy considerations which must necessarily weight with)the Government in taking action and, therefore the Court would not strike down governmental action as invalid on this ground unless it is clearly satisfied that the auction is unreasonable or not in public interest But where it is so satisfied it would be the plainest duty of the Court under the Constitution to invalidate the governmental action. This is one of the most important functions c f the Court and also one of the most essential for preservation other of the rule of Law. " 11. In Fertilizer Corporation Case, AIR 1981 SC344 at p. 350 this Court speaking through Chandrachud, C.J., observed : "We want to make it clear that we do not doubt that bona fides of the authorities, but as far as possible, sales of public property, when the intention is to get the best price, ought to take place publicly. The vendors are not necessarily bound to accept the highest or any other offer, but the public at least get the satisfaction that the Government has put all its cards on the table. In the instant case, the officers who were concerned with the sale have inevitably though unjustifiably attracted the criticism that during the course of negotiations the original bid was reduced without a justifying cause. We had willy-nilly to spend quite some valuable time in satisfying ourselves that the reduction in the price was a necessary and fair consequence of the reduction in the quantity of the goods later offered for sale on March 31,1980. One cannot exclude the possibility that a better price might have been realised in a fresh public auction but such possibilities-cannot vitiate the sale or justify the allegations of mala fides." 12. In Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1987 SC 1109 at p. 1133, O. Chinnappa Reddy J. after considering almost all the decisions of this Court on the subject summarised the propositions in the following terms: , "On a consideration of the relevant cases cited at the bar the following propositions may be taken as well established : State owned or public owned property is not to be dealt with at the absolute discretion of the executive. Certain precepts and principles have to be observed. Public interest is the paramount consideration. One of the methods of securing the public interest when it is considered necessary to dispose of a property is to sell the property by public auction or by inviting tenders. Though that is the ordinary rule, it is not an invariable rule. There may be situations where there are compelling reasons necessitating departure from the rule but then the reasons for the departure must be rational and should not be suggestive of discrimination. Appearance of public justice is as important as doing justice. Nothing should be done which gives an appearance of bias, jobbery or nepotism." 13. After applying these tests, the learned Judge finally upheld the action of West Bengal Government in not inviting tenders, or in not holding a public auction but negotating straightway at arms length with Tej Group of Hotels for giving about four acres of land for establishing a five star hotel. 14. The public property owned by the State of by any instrumentality of the State would be generally sold by public auction or by inviting tenders. This Court has been insisting upon that rule, not only to get the highest price for the property but also to ensure fairness in the activities of the State and public authorities. They should undoubtedly act fairly. Their actions should be legitimate. Their dealings should be above board. Their transactions should be without aversion or affection. Nothing should be suggestive of discrimination. Nothing should be done by them which gives an impression of bias, favourtism or nepotism. Orderinarily these factors would be absent if the matter is brought to public auction or sale by tenders. That is why the Court repeatedly stated and reiterated that the-State owned properties are required to be disposed of publicly. But that is not the only rule. As O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. observed that though that is die ordinary rule, it is not an inveriable rule. There may be situations necessitating departure from the rule, but then such instances must be justified by compulsions and not by compromise. It must be justified by compelling reasons and not by just convenience." 21. As O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. observed that though that is die ordinary rule, it is not an inveriable rule. There may be situations necessitating departure from the rule, but then such instances must be justified by compulsions and not by compromise. It must be justified by compelling reasons and not by just convenience." 21. If the scheme of disposal provided for under the Rules is analysed it could be seen that Chapter II provides for grant of mining leases on the basis of applications by individual applicants (vide Rules 7 to 9A). The provisions contained in the same Chapter also provides for grant of short permits and grant of contracts by Public auction or tender system. Thus it could be seen that though more than one method of grant is envisaged, it goes without saying that the best course which is desirable in public interest alone requires to be resorted to in order to ensure the realisation of best possible price for the rights parted to be with by the Government. In this case, the indisputable factual position is that the very quarries in question were put in public auction in the year 1995 and that too for one year only. If that be the position, it is not only beyond anybodys comprehension and as indicated earlier, mystery surrounds the move to subsequently grant the lease after the "expiry c f the earlier period for which it was auctioned by having recourse to the method of direct grant of lease without any justifying or compelling reasons either being available or recorded for the purpose and that too for a paltry and throw away price or consideration unmindful of public interest and the safeguard of public property. Whomsoever who were really responsible for this grave blunders costing heavily the exchequer, the granting of lease to the petitioners is nothing but a patent case of misuse of power by public authorities for personal gains of a few, by a calculated camouflage and abuse of the Rules. 22. In 1995 Supp (4) SCC 224, (supra), the Apex Court also observed as follows: "17. 22. In 1995 Supp (4) SCC 224, (supra), the Apex Court also observed as follows: "17. So far as the applicant in whose favour the grant of mining lease was made which grant stands revoked under Rule 19(1), the revocation takes effect from the date when the period of three months prescribed under Rule 19(1) or the extended period under the proviso to Rule 19(1) expires and the right that had accrued to the said applicant on the basis of the grant copes to an end. But in respect of third parties, the matter regarding availability of the area in question for regrant cannot be allowed to rest on the internal communication between the officials concerned of the State Government and the applicant for the mining lease the relevant facts regarding which would not be known to public and are only contained in the office files. Since grant of mining lease involves grant of a privilege by the State, every applicant for such mining lease must have an equal opportunity to apply for the same. This can be achieved only if a public notice is issued about the availability of the area for regrant so that an intending applicant knows about the availability of the area for grant and can. submit his application for that purpose." 23. That the move made to grant the leases privately to the petitioners! and the actual grant made under the orders of the Government dated 3.11.971 which was followed up by the orders of the 2nd respondent dated 6.11.1997, is shrouded in mysteries as well as gross abuse of power and demonstrates calculated recklessness and mis-management of the public property is strengthened and stand proved by the out-come of public auction held of the very mines and the amounts they fetched in open auction in which the petitioners also participated in contrast to the sum likely to be realised under the private lease in favour of the petitioners. Though these are not public interest litigations before us challenging the grant in favour of the petitioners but are writ petitions filed by persons interested in the grant who came to this Court with a grievance that they are denied of their claims for the grant of the lease, Courts exercising powers of judicial review cannot be oblivious to the realities of the situation and come to the rescue of those who have come to the Court and whose claims, if countenanced would result in Courts also extending their helping hand to reap and retain benefits of an ill-gotten and unlawful deal in utter disregard of not only the statutory rules but also the declaration of law made by the Supreme Court of India to protect public interest and public properties and prevent them from being exploited for personal gains of a few persons. The responsibility and obligation of the Court exercising judicial powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lies in preventing perpetration of injustice and ensure protection of public properties and safeguard public interest and it is not any die less man the need to protect and safeguard the rights, of an individual citizen. In appreciating the legal issues raised and in construing the applicability and operation of Rule 19 of the Rules or the need to grant relief to the petitioners the above glaring factual position, which has come to our light cannot be totally ignored and this court cannot affix its seal of approval to such vandalism allowed to be committed of the Public properties by granting the petitioners with any relief which will have the effect of defeating public interest and ends of justice. 24. The next ground of challenge that remains to be considered is one based on the manner of exercise of powers under the proviso to Rule 19 of the Rules under our consideration and the claim of the learned counsel for the petitioners mat in the absence of any factual finding recorded by the Government that the applicants for the lease are responsible for the delay in the execution of the lease deed, the Government has no other option but to permit the execution of the lease deed even after the expiry of the stipulated period of three months. In our view, a careful reading of the rule in the context of the scheme underlying the same, would make it clear that the proviso is more in the nature of an enabling power conferred upon the Government, if it is satisfied for the reason mentioned therein, namely, that the applicant for the lease is not -responsible for the delay in die execution of the lease deed, in its discretion permit the execution of the lease deed. There is nothing in the proviso which compels c to hold that a grant which stood automatically revoked on account of the failure to execute the lease within the stipulated period of three months cannot be allowed to stand as such, if the restoration of the order of grant of mining lease will be detrimental to public interest and defeat the very object of safeguarding and conserving the public property to more beneficial use. Further the grant of lease is itself a privilege without which a mine cannot be operated or exploited, particularly, when the mining lease or permission is in respect of the land belonging to the Government in which the minerals also vest with in Government It is not possible for the Courts to construe the words ‘may permit to mean shall permit, reading into those words a mandate with its real intention as it appears to us to be merely an enabling and discretionary one. Hence, we see no force in the submission that the proviso must be read as one engrafting a mandate with no option to the Government to decline to accord permission even otherwise. 25. Finally, it becomes necessary for as to consider whether on die facts and circumstances of me case as brought on record, the petitioners could claim to have complied with me conditions subject to which the raining grant has bees made in their favour and they have complied with strictly with the statutory rules governing the same to entitle them for an order from this Court to direct the respondents to execute the lease deeds in their favour pursuant to the mining grant earlier made in their favour. When the writ petitioners are seeking for a specific mandate and a direction in the nature of a mandamus, the petitioners cannot be granted with any such direction or order in their favour unless in law or otherwise they have discharged their part of the obligations in terms of the conditions stipulated as also the governing statutory rules and it is further proved that they have acquired a legally protected right to have such relief granted in their favour. In the cases on hand, there is serious controversy over the default and. lapse committed by them in failing to execute the sale deeds with in the stipulated period of three months. Though they are shown to have submitted lease deeds they are found to be not complete in all respect but those lease deeds are stated to be incomplete and is perfunctory form. Compliance with the vital conditions stipulated in the Rules including Rule 19 can not be mere technical approach or perfunctory compliance but it should be a proper and strict compliance in the real sense, which we found lacking u these cases. The petitioners cannot avail of or take any benefits from an inter-departmental correspondence dated 29.6.1998 filed as Annexure P-l l , which was never meant to be communicated to the petitioner nor was actually communicated to him amd certain self - saving statements of facts made by some official of the department can by itself provide ho legal basis to claim any substantial rights of very valuable nature from the contents thereof, particularly, when mere is serious dispute over such factual statements also. That apart, admittedly, one of the relevant as also vital conditions subject to which mining grant was made is the one contained in the one contained in clause 9 of the order dated 6.11.1997, which reads as follows : "9. The lessee shall establish to the satisfaction of the deptt. the mineral based industry with in. 3 months from the issue of this letter. In case the lessee fails to establish the Industry with in the above said stipulated period, he shall inform the deptt. immediately after the expiry of tic period stating thereby die reasons for delay. The Govt. shall be the final authority in deciding the approval of extension in the period for establishment of industry. In case the lessee fails to establish the Industry with in the above said stipulated period, he shall inform the deptt. immediately after the expiry of tic period stating thereby die reasons for delay. The Govt. shall be the final authority in deciding the approval of extension in the period for establishment of industry. In case the lessee fails to apply for expenses is the period for establishment of industry with full justification for delay or the case in» rejected at the Govt. level then the lease granted shall stand cancelled from the date of issue of letter m this behalf" 26. The establishment of the mineral based industry as envisaged in Condition No. 9 has also to be in strict compliance of classes 10 and 11, which read1 as hereunder: "10. The lessee shall establish the mineral based mot at a place far off from public .view. 11. The lessee shall procure consent letter for establishment of mineral based industry from H.P. State Pollution Control Board within 8 months from the date of issue of this order and shall submit the same to the department." 27. It is not in dispute that show cause notices have been issued to the petitioners pointing out the violation of the default committed by them in this regard. Though they claim to have submitted their explanations, it is not as though the Government has granted any extension of time in this regard. It is, not given to the petitioners to claim that merely because they submitted their explanations, it must be taken that the petitioners have been exempted from complying with this stipulation and condition contained in the order. On the other hand, unless actually any order of santension has been passed in their favour, it must be taken that they have not complied with the conditions No. 9 to 11 also of the order subject to which only the mining grant has been made in their favour. It is in this context that the manner in which the petitioners managed to get mining grant in their favour in deviation of the earlier procedure adopted in respect of the very mines of disposing of the rights by public auction, by private deal to the detriment of the public interest and public coffers assumes great significance and important. It is in this context that the manner in which the petitioners managed to get mining grant in their favour in deviation of the earlier procedure adopted in respect of the very mines of disposing of the rights by public auction, by private deal to the detriment of the public interest and public coffers assumes great significance and important. In our view, with some of many such irregularities bristling and suspicion surrounding the initial grant itself coupled with the non-compliance by the petitioners of very (sic) and important conditions imposed under the grant order as well as in the governing rules, it is not permissible for this Court to come to the rescue of the petitioners on any sympathetic considerations. The claim of the petitioners have no basis in law or support injustice. If this Court is to countenance the claims of the petitioners, it would amount to affixing its seal of approval to ever so many glaring infirmities and abuse of power, noticed above, and confer premium on such illegalities. Consequently, we are unable to agree with any one of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 28. For all the reasons stated above, these writ petitions fail and shall stand dismissed. No costs. CMP No. 984/98 29. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the present application is also dismissed. Petition dismissed. -