Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 379 (JK)

Subash Chander Sharma v. State Of J&K

2013-07-03

BANSI LAL BHAT

body2013
1. The afore-titled writ petitions, four in numbers, have a common subject matter. Questions for determination are also common to all. Therefore, these writ petitions were heard and are disposed of by a common judgement. SWP No. 587/201 2. Through the medium of the instant writ petition, petitioner has assailed making of allotment for Royalty Collection Contracts. of Minor Minerals for Block -II (River Tawi and All its tributaries/Nallahs from Village Katal Batal to Sidhra Bye Pass Bridge within the limits of Tehsil, Jammu excluding Private Land duly demarcated) District, Jammu in favour of respondent no. 3. The extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of State of Jammu and Kashmir, has been invoked on the strength of averments made in the writ petition to the effect that the department of Geology and Mining had been allotting Royalty Collection Contracts of Minor Minerals by inviting tenders as per the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1962 (herein referred as `Rules') as notified by the State Government. It is further averred that the Tender Notice respondent no. 3, arbitrarily and without following legal procedure established by law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on two communications. First communication is from respondent no. 1 to respondent no. 2 to make allotment of Royalty Collection Contract for a period of six months w.e.f 01.04.2013 in the first instance on reserved bid price and above and through second communication respondent no. 1 has informed respondent no. 2 and conveyed the Administrative Department's approval to the continuation of Royalty Collection Contract with the existing arrangement with usual hike as per agreement for the next six months, though the rules clearly provided that Mining Lease and Royalty Collection Contract be granted by auction or by inviting tenders. Alledgeldy, the allotment has been made contrary to the provisions of Minor Mineral Concession Rules and the principles of law applicable for inviting Government contracts. It is NMSJ/Tender/2012-13/1264 dated 08.02.2012 was issued previously for making allotment of Royalty Collection Contracts for the fiscal year 2012-13. However no tender was issued for making allotment of the contract during the current financial year. Allotment was made in favour of respondent no. 3 for the current financial year without inviting any tender and without giving any publicity regarding the allotment of contract. However no tender was issued for making allotment of the contract during the current financial year. Allotment was made in favour of respondent no. 3 for the current financial year without inviting any tender and without giving any publicity regarding the allotment of contract. It is further averred in the petition that a press release was issued by respondent no. 2 on 27th March, 2013, and 50% consideration amount was accepted on 28th March, 2013 by respondent no. 2 and the allotment order was made in favour of respondent no. 3 on 29th March, 2013 without affording an opportunity to eligible persons to participate in the tendering process. It is further averred that no tender notice was issued by respondent no. 2 this year for making allotment of Royalty Collection Contract. The allotment has been made in favour of and set aside the communications referred to hereinabove. OWP No. 497/2013 3. Petitioner has challenged allotment Order dated 29.03.2013, whereby Royalty Collection Contract of Block no. 1 (Tarnah Nallah and other Nallhas joining River Tarnah in Tehsil Hiranagar District Kathua has been allotted in favour of respondent no. 3 without issuing any NIT or Auction Notice. It is averred that Tender Notice dated 08.02.2012 was issued by the Department of Geology and Mining Jammu for making the allotment of Royalty Collection Contract of minor minerals w.e.f. 1.04.2012 to 31.03.2013. The petitioner being eligible and qualified participated in the auction. He was found to be the highest bidder and in this regard a communication was issued intimating that his offer of Rs. 32.00 lacs for Royalty Collection Contract in respect of Block no. 1 (Tarnah Nalah) in District Kathua has been further alleged that respondent no. 3 did not fulfill the eligibility conditions for getting the impugned allotment. As per the averments made in the petition, the impugned allotments were made in a hush manner. The press release was issued on 27th March, 2013, which happened to be a holiday on account of Holi Festival. The C.D.R was received from respondent no. 3 on 28th March, 2013 and the impugned allotment order was issued on 29th March, 2013 which again happened to be a holiday on account of Good Friday. Thus the official respondents are alleged to have acted arbitrarily to confer undue benefit upon respondent no. 3. The C.D.R was received from respondent no. 3 on 28th March, 2013 and the impugned allotment order was issued on 29th March, 2013 which again happened to be a holiday on account of Good Friday. Thus the official respondents are alleged to have acted arbitrarily to confer undue benefit upon respondent no. 3. Non- issuance of NIT in the instant case is termed as a malafide exercise of power on the part of respondent no. 2. On the strength of these averments, petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of the impugned allotment order and directing the respondents' to allot the Royalty Collection Contract in his favour and also to quash accepted. Petitioner was directed to deposit balance amount of Rs. 23.00 lacs in the shape of Bank Draft alongwith agreement deed within a period of 15 days. A writ petition bearing OWP no. 391/2012 was filed against the petitioner wherein by an interim order respondents were directed not to complete the process for allotment of the contract. The aforesaid contract was not granted to the petitioner and the royalty was collected by the Department of Geology and Mining as per the approved rates. It is further averred in the writ petition that royalty collection contract of Block no.1 has been allowed in favour of respondent no. 3 for the current year i.e. from 01.04.2013 without issuing any NIT or auction notice. Though respondent no. 3 was neither a registered contractor of the Geology and Mining Department nor was he state subject. OWP no. 544/2013 4. Petitioner has challenged allotment Orders dated 29.03.2013 whereby Royalty Collection Contracts of Block no. I, II and III i.e. Block No. 1 (Tawi River and its tributaries and Khuds, Nallahs, Tehsil Chenani up to Salmya Bridge in Tehsil, Udhampur excluding 500mrts upstream and 200 Mtrs. Down Stream from intake of Water Supply Stream in Tawi River), Block no.II (Tawi River and its Tributaries and Khuds, Nllahs from Salmaya Bridge Down Stream up to Tawi Duddar Junction within the limits of Tehsil, Udhampur, Block no. III (all the rivers, Nallhas, Khuds (including Birwan Khud) District Udhampur were allotted in favour of respondent no. 3 without inviting any tenders and without giving any publicity. It is averred that a press release was issued by the respondent no. III (all the rivers, Nallhas, Khuds (including Birwan Khud) District Udhampur were allotted in favour of respondent no. 3 without inviting any tenders and without giving any publicity. It is averred that a press release was issued by the respondent no. 2 on 27.03.2013, 50% consideration amount of all the above said contracts has been received on 28.03.2013 and all the allotment orders have been made on 29.03.2013 without inviting tenders and without affording an opportunity to eligible persons to participate in the tendering process. Reliance has been placed on two communications. First communication is communicated by respondent no. 1 to respondent to 2 to make allotment of Royalty Collection Contract for a period of six months in the first instance on reserved bid price and through second communication respondent no. 2 has conveyed the administrative department's approvals for continuation of Royalty Collection Contract with usual hike as per the agreement for the next six months w.e.f. 01.04.2013. It is further averred that relying upon the above said communications, respondent no. 2 issued a press release on 27th March and received the payments from respondent no. 3 on 28.03.2013 and allotted the contracts in his favour. It is further averred that the contracts of the Geology and Mining Department regarding collection of royalty have to be allotted by way of open auction or by inviting tenders. It is averred that allotment has been made arbitrarily, illegally and without any jurisdiction as petitioner is not a registered contractor of the Geology and Mining Department and has no certificate of approval (COA) of the said department. OWP No. 588/2013 5. Petitioner has challenged allotment order dated 29.03.2013 whereby Royalty Collection Contract of Block no. II (River Ujja including Bhag Nallah, Shap Nallah and Troti Nallah excluding the limits of Tehsil, Billawar) has been made in favour of respondent no.3 without inviting any tenders and without giving any publicity regarding the allotment of the above said contract. It is averred that Royalty Collection Contract of Ujjh River i.e Block no. II of District Kathua was allotted in favour of the petitioner vide communication MGY/Tender/2012-13/993-95 dated 27.08.2012. The said contract was to continue till 31.03.2012. Instead of making allotment in favour of the petitioner, respondents 1 and 2 have allotted the contract of aforesaid Block- II in favour of respondent no. 3 without issuing any NIT or conducting of auction. II of District Kathua was allotted in favour of the petitioner vide communication MGY/Tender/2012-13/993-95 dated 27.08.2012. The said contract was to continue till 31.03.2012. Instead of making allotment in favour of the petitioner, respondents 1 and 2 have allotted the contract of aforesaid Block- II in favour of respondent no. 3 without issuing any NIT or conducting of auction. It is further averred that respondent no. 3 is not eligible under the Mining Mineral Concession Rules, 1962 as notified by the State Government. A press release was issued by respondent no. 2 on 27.03.2013, 50% consideration amount of the contract has been received by respondent no. 2 on 28.03.2013 and the allotment order was made on 29.03.2013 without inviting tenders. It is averred that no tender notice was issued by the official respondents for current year for making allotment of Royalty Collection Contract. In the Rules it has been provided that Mining Lease and Royalty Collection Contract is to be granted by auction or by inviting tenders so that every-body who is eligible to participate in the allotment process gets opportunity to participate. It is further averred that vide communication dated 26.03.2013 respondent no. 2 issued a press release on 27th March and received the payment from respondent no.3 on 28th March and allotted the contract on 29th March, whereas respondent no. 3 did not fulfil any of the eligibility condition under the minor Mineral Rules. It is further averred that a press release was issued on 27th March which happened to be a holiday on account of Holi Festival and allotment order was issued on 29th March which was also a holiday on account of Good Friday. It is further averred that respondent no. 3 is neither a registered contractor of the Geology and Mining Department nor a state subject. 6. Respondent no. 2 has filed a common reply in OWP no. 497/2013 pleading therein that for the financial year 2012-13 three NITs were issued by the respondent-State for grant of Royalty Collection Contract in regard to Minor Minerals (viz. Ordinary Sand, Nallah Bajri, Nallah Boulders, Nallah Muck, and Crushing Stone etc.). First NIT was issued in respect of 38 Minor Mineral Blocks of Jammu province on 3rd of February 2012. However response was received only for 22 Blocks. Second NIT was issued on 5th March 2012 for 16 Blocks but response was received only for 02 Blocks. Ordinary Sand, Nallah Bajri, Nallah Boulders, Nallah Muck, and Crushing Stone etc.). First NIT was issued in respect of 38 Minor Mineral Blocks of Jammu province on 3rd of February 2012. However response was received only for 22 Blocks. Second NIT was issued on 5th March 2012 for 16 Blocks but response was received only for 02 Blocks. Third NIT was issued on 3rd April 2012 for the remaining 14 Blocks. There was no response. Petitioner participated in the tendering process. He was found successful in two Blocks i.e. Block No. I and Block no. III of District Kathua and for both the blocks, letters of intent were issued in his favour on 8th March, 2012 and 30th March, 2012 respectively. Allotment of Royalty Collection Contract in respect of Block No. 1 District Kathua was challenged by one Sushil Singh in writ petition bearing OWP no. 391/2012 titled Sushil Singh v. State of J&K and Ors in which official respondents were directed not to complete the process of allotment of contract in favour of the petitioner. Thus allotment of Royalty Collection Contract in respect of Block No. 1 of District Kathua could not be finalized in favour of the petitioner. Royalty was collected by the respondent-State in the said Block departmentally as per the approved rates. The process of allotment in respect of Block No III of District Kathua was finalized and the contract was allotted to the petitioner. It is further pleaded that respondent no.2 has submitted draft rules of Minor Minerals to the Administrative Department for consideration and same are pending finalization. Tenders were not called for award of Royalty Collection Contract for the financial year 2013-14. On 25.09.2012 Administrative Department was approached for according approval for extension of period of Royalty Collection Contracts of year 2012-13 for one year. Thereafter on 16th March, 2013 Administrative Department was approached to accord approval for negotiating the allotment with the interested parties with respect to those Blocks which remained under departmental control. The Administrative Department conveyed its approval of the extension of Royalty Collection Contract with existing arrangement for the next six months and also authorized to negotiate the rates for the period of 1st 6 months of financial year 2013-14 on reserve bid price and above. Respondents proceeded ahead in accordance with the administrative approval. The Administrative Department conveyed its approval of the extension of Royalty Collection Contract with existing arrangement for the next six months and also authorized to negotiate the rates for the period of 1st 6 months of financial year 2013-14 on reserve bid price and above. Respondents proceeded ahead in accordance with the administrative approval. A Press release was issued on 27th march, 2013 for publicity through print/ electronic media. In response thereto 10 Minor Mineral Blocks of Jammu province besides 16 Minor Minerals Blocks of Kashmir province were allotted to different persons on the basis of negotiation and first come first served basis. Extension was granted to 21 Royalty Collection Contracts in Jammu province and 10 in Kashmir province. In addition to the aforesaid allotments, extension was granted in favour of the petitioner for Block III for 1st six months of 2013-14 on enhancement of 10 % of the previous bid offered in the year 2012-13. Thus Royalty Collection Contract for Minor Mineral Block No. III was extended for a period of 06 months in the first instance, in favour of the petitioner, against enhanced consideration amount. The allotments and extensions were made in accordance with the rules and as per approval given by the Administrative Department. In the reply in has been contended that the petitioner was getting benefit of approval on the one hand and challenging the same on the other hand. Royalty Collection Contract for Block No. I of District Kathua had been granted to respondent no. 3 on first come first served basis. It is further pleaded that the allotment of Royalty Collection Contract has been made under rules with the approval of Administrative Department which has not been challenged by the petitioner. It has been done to safeguard the State exchequer and for enhancement of the revenue. 7. In OWP no.497/2013, Respondent no. 3 -Vinod Khanan Pvt. Ltd. has filed objections resisting the writ petition on the grounds taken by the respondent-State. It is further pleaded that the petitioner did not respond to the notice issued by respondent no. 2 in the form of press release. Since the petitioner did not apply for allotment of the aforesaid contracts, same could not be awarded in his favour. Respondent no. It is further pleaded that the petitioner did not respond to the notice issued by respondent no. 2 in the form of press release. Since the petitioner did not apply for allotment of the aforesaid contracts, same could not be awarded in his favour. Respondent no. 3 applied for allotment of the aforesaid contract and the same was allotted to him in terms of the approval accorded by the Government for a total consideration of an amount, of Rs. 16 lac. The contract has been acted upon and respondent no. 3 has started execution of the said contract. Since the petitioner has failed to apply for allotment of contract within the stipulated time, he was not entitled to such allotment. 8. The questions arising for consideration are: i) Whether it was open to State-respondent to allot the Royalty Collection Contract/extend the previous fiscal year contract on and above reserved price bid and not to adopt open auction for inviting tenders for the same; ii) Whether the allotment made in favour of respondent no. 3 on enhanced reserved price bid was done in a transparent manner. 9. Heard rival sides and perused the record. 10. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that all government works/contracts have to be allotted by way of open auction or by inviting tenders. Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees equality of law and equal protection of laws to all the citizens. In an open auction all persons who are eligible to participate in the allotment process are entitled to participate in the auction. Likewise, when tenders are invited everybody gets an opportunity to participate in the allotment process. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that minor mineral constitutes State property and such minor mineral extraction contracts have to be allotted in accordance with the acknowledged principles of law, whereby all the eligible persons get an opportunity to participate in the allotment process. It is pointed out that no tender notice was issued nor the auction notice was issued this fiscal year and the allotment has been made by respondents arbitrarily, illegally and in violation of principles of equality as enshrined in part 3 of the Constitution of India. 11. The allotment of Block No. 1 in favour of respondent no. It is pointed out that no tender notice was issued nor the auction notice was issued this fiscal year and the allotment has been made by respondents arbitrarily, illegally and in violation of principles of equality as enshrined in part 3 of the Constitution of India. 11. The allotment of Block No. 1 in favour of respondent no. 3 is assailed on the ground that he was neither a registered contractor of Geology and Mining Department nor a state subject. Thus respondent no. 3 did not fulfil eligibility criteria. It is further submitted that in the previous year's contract there is a stipulation to the effect that it could be renewed with 10 % hike which would be an extension of the last year's contract, because the Geology and Mining Department itself asked for continuation. 12. Per contra it has been argued on behalf of the respondents that inviting of tenders or open auction are not the only modes of allotment of public contract. It is pointed out that Government acted under the provisions of a statute to allot the contract for Royalty Collection of the aforesaid Block on first come first served basis with hike in previous bid, as the tender invited for the previous fiscal year had not attracted much response. This was done to prevent loss and ensure that work in all the Blocks is allotted and no loss is suffered by the State exchequer. 13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar. 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the distribution of the natural resources in the writ petition (civil) No. 423 of 2010 titled Centre for Public Interest Litigation and ors v. Union of India and ors with writ petition (civil) No. 10 of 2011, titled Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India and ors (popularly known as 2G spectrum case), held that natural resources, renewable or non-renewable, are generally understood as elements having intrinsic utility to mankind. Natural resources belong to the people, but the State legally owns them on behalf of its people. The State is empowered to distribute natural resources. However, as they constitute public property/national assets, the State is bound to act in consonance with the principles of equality and public trust while distributing natural resources. Natural resources belong to the people, but the State legally owns them on behalf of its people. The State is empowered to distribute natural resources. However, as they constitute public property/national assets, the State is bound to act in consonance with the principles of equality and public trust while distributing natural resources. The State is further required to ensure that no such action is taken which may be detrimental to public interest. Constitutionalism must be reflected at every stage of the distribution of natural resources. The mandate of Article 39 (b) of the Constitution enjoins upon the State to distribute material resources of the community so as to best sub-serve the common good. Under Common Law State is deemed to have proprietary interest in natural resources and must act as guardian and trustee. Across the World constitutions focus on establishing natural resources as owned by, or for the benefit of the country. The sovereign State or `the people' are designated as the owner of the natural resources. The Courts in India have given an expansive interpretation to the concept of natural resources for protection and proper allocation/distribution. It was further observed that the Courts have repeatedly insisted on compliance of the constitutional principles in the process of distribution, transfer and alienation of natural resources. The doctrine of public trust has been applied and it has been held that State and its agencies/instrumentalities actions must be for the public good, achieving the object for which they exist and should not be arbitrary or capricious. State and its instrumentalities must ensure competition and non-discrimination in the field of contracts. Fair and reasonable methods are to be resorted to do pubic good. State must be guided by the doctrine of equality in determining the actual mechanism for distribution of natural resources. People are to be granted equitable access to natural resources or its products. Procedure adopted for distribution of natural resources has to be just, non-arbitrary and transparent leaving no scope for discrimination between similarly placed parties. Public interest is the paramount consideration for disposal of a property by public auction or by inviting tenders. This is one of the methods of securing the public interest. However, same is not an invariable rule. Compelling reasons may necessitate departure from the rule but such departure must not be suggestive of discrimination. Public interest is the paramount consideration for disposal of a property by public auction or by inviting tenders. This is one of the methods of securing the public interest. However, same is not an invariable rule. Compelling reasons may necessitate departure from the rule but such departure must not be suggestive of discrimination. Thus it was held that State is the legal owner of the natural resources empowered to distribute the same-- the process of distribution is to be guided by the constitutional principles of equality and larger public interest. Deprecating the "first come first severed" policy involving elements of pure chance or accident the Hon'ble Apex Court reitreated the principle that wherever a contract is to be awarded or a licence is to be given, the public authority must adopt a transparent and fair method for making selection, so that all eligible persons get a fair opportunity of competition. A duly publicized auction conducted fairly and impartially is the best method for alienation of natural resources. 15. Having noticed the legal position and adverting back to the factual aspect be it seen that the department of Geology and Mining had been allotting Royalty Collection Contracts of Minor Minerals by inviting tenders from the eligible persons under Minor Mineral Concession Rules governing the open auction. Same procedure was observed for making allotment of Royalty Collection Contract for financial year 2012-13. However, no notification was issued by the official respondents for inviting tenders for open auction of the Minor Mineral Resources for the year beginning 1st April, 2013. In respect of Block No 1 District Kathua allotment was made in favour of respondent no. 3 for a period of six months in the first instance on reserved bid price with approval by the Administrative Department to the continuation of existing arrangement with usual hike. Admittedly, allotment for the same could not be finalised in favour of the Petitioner in the previous year due to litigation and the extraction work was undertaken departmentally. It is pointed out that for the year 2012-13 three NITs were issued for grant of Royalty Collection Contracts in respect of Minor Minerals. 1st NIT for 38 Minor Mineral Blocks of Jammu province evoked response only for 22 Blocks, 2nd NIT for remaining 16 Blocks evoked response only for 02 Blocks and the 3rd NIT for remaining 14 Blocks evoked no response at all. 1st NIT for 38 Minor Mineral Blocks of Jammu province evoked response only for 22 Blocks, 2nd NIT for remaining 16 Blocks evoked response only for 02 Blocks and the 3rd NIT for remaining 14 Blocks evoked no response at all. Petitioner bagged allotment for two Blocks of District Kathua, however, due to litigation allotment in respect of Block no. 1 for District Kathua was not finalized in favour of the petitioner and royalty was collected by the respondents departmentally as per the approved rates. Block no. III of District Kathua was allotted to the petitioner. Since the Draft Minor Minerals Concession Rules framed by the State in compliance to Hon'ble Apex Court order dated 27.02.2012 had not been finalized, no tenders were called for financial year 2013-14. Royalty Collection Contracts were extended with the existing arrangements for next six months after negotiating the rates on reserved bid price and above. A press release was issued calling upon the interested parties to contact Directorate of Geology and Mining. Allotments were made in respect of 10 Minor Mineral Blocks of Jammu province and 16 Minor Mineral Blocks of Kashmir province in favour of different persons on "first come first served" basis. Besides, extension was given to 21 Royalty Collection Contracts in Jammu province and 10 in Kashmir province. It is pointed out that extension was granted in favour of the petitioner as well for Block No. III of Kathua District on enhancement of 10% of the previous bid. The allotments are said to have been made in accordance with the approval given by the Administrative Department. In regard to Block No. 1 of District Kathua, it is pointed out that petitioner could not participate in the tendering process due to Court directions. Petitioner did not apply for allotment of Block no. 1 of District Kathua in the current year. It is further pointed out that the petitioner has not challenged the administrative department's approval. It is thus, manifestly clear that the petitioner himself has been the beneficiary of extension of allotment order in regard to Block no. Ill of Districts Kathua on the basis of approval of administrative department, but simultaneously he chose to assail the allotment of Royalty Collection Contact for Block no. 1 of District Kathua in favour of respondent no. It is thus, manifestly clear that the petitioner himself has been the beneficiary of extension of allotment order in regard to Block no. Ill of Districts Kathua on the basis of approval of administrative department, but simultaneously he chose to assail the allotment of Royalty Collection Contact for Block no. 1 of District Kathua in favour of respondent no. 3 oblivious of the fact that he himself participated in the process which he alleged to be arbitrary and non-transparent. 16. Law laid down in 2G Spectrum case noticed herein above is loud and clear. Alienation of natural resources by public auction is the preferred method for securing the public interest. But that is not the only mode of distribution of natural resources. In the instant case, it has come to fore that tenders floated for award of Royalty Collection Contracts for financial year 2012-13 in respect of 14 Blocks did not evoke response at all. Consequently, the extraction work was undertaken departmentally for such Blocks. Royalty Collection Contract for extraction of Minor Minerals in Block no. 1 (River Tarnah and other Nallahs) in District Kathua was allotted in favour of respondent no. 3 for a period of six months. This was done in pursuance of administrative department's approval to negotiate the rates for allotment of Royalty Collection Contracts for a period of six months beginning 01.04. 2013 in the first instance on reserved bid and above with usual hike. Same course was adopted in respect of other blocks as well. It is patently clear that the course adopted, of which petitioner too was the beneficiary was in the interest of Exchequer as same also covered the Blocks for which there was no response to NITs issued for the previous year. The hike on the Minor Minerals Resources bid price of previous year also ensured generation of additional revenue. Therefore, it is futile to contend that the largesses were distributed to the blue-eyed. Petitioner cannot raise hue and cry, he himself being beneficiary of extension of the existing arrangement. 17. So far as the rule position is concerned, Rule 51 of the Jammu and Kashmir Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1962 provides for leasing out of minor mineral deposits by public auction or by inviting tenders by the competent authority. Petitioner cannot raise hue and cry, he himself being beneficiary of extension of the existing arrangement. 17. So far as the rule position is concerned, Rule 51 of the Jammu and Kashmir Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1962 provides for leasing out of minor mineral deposits by public auction or by inviting tenders by the competent authority. It is, however, subject to a proviso which authorises a Government Department to extract any minor mineral deposit from the area for government works with the permission of State Government. The rule engrafted is further subjected to Rule 55, which provides that Government may adopt any other method for leasing out minor mineral deposits in public interest. This provision has an over-riding effect. Public interest being paramount consideration, departure can be made from inviting tenders or going for open auction for extraction of minor mineral deposits in appropriate cases if circumstances so warrant. That is the rule position as it exists now. 18. The legal position emerging from the 2G Spectrum case in regard to alienation of natural resources is not frustrated by the rules which primarily advocate open auction/inviting tenders for extraction of Minor Minerals, but empowers the Government to adopt any other method for leasing out Minor Mineral Deposits in public interest. The procedure devised under the rules has not been shown to be unfair or arbitrary. It has been invoked in the instant case to safeguard the vital economic interests of the State. It cannot, therefore, be held to be violative of Constitutional grantees. The questions formulated are answered accordingly. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in these petitions. These petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. 20. Interim direction, if any, in the aforesaid petitions shall stand vacated. 21. Registry to place a copy of this judgment on each file.