JUDGMENT D.H. WAGHELA, J. 1. The petitioners are stated to be villagers of Tavarekere Village of Kunigal Taluk and have, by filing the present petition as public interest litigation, called into question three Government notifications dated 11.06.2012, which are annexed to the petition as Annexures-H, J and K. Initially, it was the case of the petitioners that respondent No.7 herein had applied for quarrying of multi-coloured granite from the land bearing Survey No.78, in respect of which an opinion of the Forest Department was obtained so as to grant various extents of land for quarrying. The Gram Panchayat claimed the land in question to be gomal land and the Village Panchayat passed a resolution dated 13.06.2012 objecting to grant of lease to the respondent concerned for the purpose of quarrying multi-coloured granite from the area. 2. The petition was argued mainly on the legality of the impugned notifications dated 11.06.2012 of the State Government which are in fact couched in the language giving them colour of sanction for quarrying of multi-coloured granite. The first two paragraphs of the impugned notifications typically read as under:- "1. Sanction is hereby accorded for multicoloured granite quarrying in favour of M/s. Ananya Exports Private Limited in Survey No.78 Government Gomal land situated in Tavarekere village, Kunigal taluk, Tumkur District in an extent of 10-00 (ten) acres for a period of ten years as required under Rule 11 (4) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994. 2. This Mining contract is granted subject to following terms and conditions:- (a) …….. (b) …….. (c) The mining activities shall not be commenced on the basis of this notification. The Mining activities shall be commenced after the Lease Deed is executed. (d) …….. (e) …….. (f) …….. (g) …….. (h) …….. (i) …….. (j) …….. (k) …….. (l) If the roads leading to mining area belong to Forest Department, the contractor shall obtain the prior consent of the Forest Department as required under the provisions of Forest Conservation Act, 1980. (m) …….. (n) The contractor shall obtain No Objection Certificate compulscrily from the MOEF of the Central Government before executing the Mining Lease. (j) …….. (k) …….. (l) If the roads leading to mining area belong to Forest Department, the contractor shall obtain the prior consent of the Forest Department as required under the provisions of Forest Conservation Act, 1980. (m) …….. (n) The contractor shall obtain No Objection Certificate compulscrily from the MOEF of the Central Government before executing the Mining Lease. (o) The Contractor shall compulsorily obtain No Objection Certificate from the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAAs) before executing the Mining Lease as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as also the Ministry of Forest and Environment of the Government of India. By order and in the name of Governor Sd/- K. Venkatesh, 11.6.2012 Desk Officer (Mines) Department of Industries and Commerce" 3. It was argued for the petitioners that the grant of land in the aforesaid manner to respondent No.7 was clearly and obviously in violation of the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short 'the Rules'), more particularly the provisions of Rules 8-A and 8-B. 4. Per contra, it was vehemently argued by learned senior advocate Mr.D.N.Nanjunda Reddy and learned AGA Mr.R.G.Kolle that the sanction granted by the impugned notifications for quarrying in favour of respondent No.7 was legal and permissible under the relevant provisions of the Rules. 5. The main issue falling for consideration could be resolved by plain reading of the express provisions of Rules 8-A and 8-B which may be extracted for easy reference as under:- "8-A. Availability of land belonging to the State Government to be notified for grant. 5. The main issue falling for consideration could be resolved by plain reading of the express provisions of Rules 8-A and 8-B which may be extracted for easy reference as under:- "8-A. Availability of land belonging to the State Government to be notified for grant. (1) No area belonging to the State Government- (a) Which was previously held or is being held under a quarrying lease; or (b) The quarrying lease granted in respect of which has lapsed under Rule 6; (c) In respect of which a notification has been issued under sub-rule (3) of Rule 8; Shall be available for grant unless the availability of the area for grant is notified in the Official Gazette and specifying the date (being the date not earlier than thirty days from the date of publication of such notification in the Official Gazette) from which such area shall be available for grant:- Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to renewal of a quarrying lease in favour of the original lessee or his legal heirs:- Provided further that where an area is reserved for use by the State or Central Government company or any body or corporation owned or controlled by the State or Central Government, issue of such notification under this rule shall not be necessary before grant of quarrying lease in respect of such area. (2) The State Government may, for reasons to be recorded in writing relax the provisions of sub-rule (1) in any special case. (3) Any application for grant of quarrying lease in respect of areas whose availability for grant is required to be notified under sub-rule (1) shall, if:- (a) No notification has been issued under that rule; or (b) Whether any such notification has been issued, the period specified in the notification has not expired, Be deemed to be premature and shall not be entertained, and the application fee thereon, if any paid, shall be refunded. 8-B. Notifying the area for grant of lease by tender-cum-auction.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the competent authority may by notification direct that quarrying leases to quarry specified or non-specified minor mineral in any area belonging to the Stare Government and available for grant as may be specified in such notification, shall be granted by tender-cum- auction in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV-A. (2) Where any area is notified under sub-rule (i), no quarrying lease to quarry specified or as the case may be, non-specified minor mineral in such area shall be granted in accordance with the provisions of Chapter III or Chapter IV, as the case may be." 6. A conjoint reading of the above relevant Rules clearly demarcate the power of the State Government and the limitations imposed thereon for grant of land for the purpose of quarrying. There was no dispute about the legal proposition that Rule 8-A exclusively applies to the cases where the area belonging to the State Government was previously held and in such cases, the detailed procedure to be followed is prescribed by that Rule. The provisions of Rule 8-B clearly provides for notification of any area to be made available for quarrying leases to quarry specified or non-specified minor mineral, notwithstanding any other provisions of the Rules. It is clearly provided that the competent authority, in its discretion may direct, by notification, that quarrying lease to quarry such minor mineral in any area belonging to the State Government would be available for grant; but in the same breath, it is clearly provided that the directions about availability for grant of any area shall be subject to the condition that grant shall be by tender-cum-auction in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV-A of the Rules. 7. As against such scheme of the provisions of Rule 8-B, it was argued for the respondents that the Government had the discretion to grant the land for quarrying without or otherwise than by tender-cum-auction. That argument was proposed to be supported by reading of the provisions of Rule 9 which falls in Chapter III entitled "Grant of Quarrying Lease for Specified Minor Minerals". That argument was proposed to be supported by reading of the provisions of Rule 9 which falls in Chapter III entitled "Grant of Quarrying Lease for Specified Minor Minerals". It was however seen that by the plain language of Rule 9, it was applicable only to making of application for grant for lease to quarry specified minor minerals in the land belonging to the State Government, which has not been notified under Rule 8-B. It was however insisted by learned senior advocate that the provisions of Rule 9 operated m all cases where no notification under Rule 8-B was issued and that indirectly supported the argument that it is not necessary in all cases not covered by Rule 8-A that a notification had to be issued under Rule 8-B for the purpose of grant of quarrying lease. This is a circuitous argument and an attempt at finding out a non-extant provision with support of the Rule primarily made for prescribing procedure for making an application for grant of lease of areas covered by Rule 8-A. 8. In fact, the issue sought to be raised by the respondent is not entirely res integra insofar as the Division Bench of this Court has extensively dealt with the apparent dichotomy of the provisions of Rules 8-A and 8-B in the elaborate judgment dated 30.03.2009 in Writ Petition No.9276/2008. It was also fairly conceded that the issue was considered, though from a different angle, in the aforesaid judgment, after extensive reference to observations of the Apex Court in Parimala Granites (P) Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka & another, (2004)11 SCC 339 and it was held by this Court as under:- "17.10. Rule 11(4) of the Rules only enables i:he Government, having regard to the recommendation of the Committee, order for grant or renewal of quarrying lease or reject the application. Rule 11(4) would operate only if there is any recommendation by the Committee and therefore, the Government can grant or renew the lease only if there is a recommendation or even if there is any recommendation, still the Government can reject it? but, in any event, Rule 11(4) does not confer any right on the Government to grant lease when the Committee itself refuses to recommend for grant or renewal of quarry lease. but, in any event, Rule 11(4) does not confer any right on the Government to grant lease when the Committee itself refuses to recommend for grant or renewal of quarry lease. Resultantly, when the recommendation itself is rejected by the Committee, the Government has no power at all to grant or renew the lease. 17.11. It is in this regard, the Government has exercised the power not conferred under the Rule 11(4) of the Rules, which vitiates the impugned lease, both not only by exercise of power not conferred on the Government, but also by their omission to exercise power reasonably vested under Rule 8-B, because it is a settled law that when public properties are proposed to be disposed of, the Government being vested with public trust is obligated to adopt the procedure by which it can get maximum possible return /consideration from such property of the Government, l:he methodology for receiving maximum consideration in a normal and fair competition would only be the public auction which is expected to be fair and transparent. Because public auction not only ensures fair price and maximum return but also militates against any allegation of favouritism on the part of the Government authorities while giving grant for disposing of public property. Invitation for participation in the public auction also ensures transparency and it would be free from bias or discrimination and beyond reproach and the Courts have time and again accepted the public auction as a transparent means of disposal of the public property [vide Aggarval & Modi Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. New Delhi Municipal Council, (2007)8 SCC 75 )]. Such public spirit is intended under Rule 8-B. The non-issuance of notification under Rule 8-B by the Government in the instant case is writ large. xxxx xxxx 17.15. The combined reading of Rules 8-A, 8-B, 9, 11 and 12 of the KMMC Rules, makes it clear that said provisions provide for transparency in the matter of grant of quarry lease, affording an opportunity to all the persons interested to make applications. xxxx xxxx 17.15. The combined reading of Rules 8-A, 8-B, 9, 11 and 12 of the KMMC Rules, makes it clear that said provisions provide for transparency in the matter of grant of quarry lease, affording an opportunity to all the persons interested to make applications. Any other interpretation to mean that no notification is required for the grant of virgin quarry, would only lead to unreasonable and arbitrary exercise of power attracting Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and therefore the same has to be discouraged, because it would be difficult for a person interested to have knowledge as to the availability of land for grant of lease without any notification, unless such interested person has links with bureaucrats and has sources to acquire the same. Except where the State propose to consider the applications on priority prescribed under Rule 12(1)(i) to (vi), in all other circumstances, even where the selection of the applications fall under 'all others' category attracting Rule 12(1)(vii), the only reasonable option would be to notify the area available for public auction for want of guidelines in the Rules to give priority among 'all others'. The power conferred under Rule 8B of the Rules has to be exercised with the close proximity to the desired public interest to augment more revenue to the State. Therefore, the contention advanced on behalf of the 9th respondent and the lease granting authority that only in the case of Rule 8-A(1) (a), (b) and (c), the Government is required to issue notification regarding availability of the areas and that the lands which are not covered under Rule 8- A(1)(a), (b) and (c) are the virgin lands and such virgin lands are available for grant without notification, in our considered opinion, is nothing but imaginary, illogical and irrational." 9. It was however lastly argued for the respondent that the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court has been carried in appeal and by order dated 11.09.2009, the application for Special Leave to Appeal has been entertained and interim stay of the impugned order is granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and that order has been continued pending appeal by the subsequent order dated 18.04.2013. 10. 10. Upon a plain reading of the provisions of Rule 8-B of the Rules, even without reference to the above judgment of this Court or to the mandate of Article 14, we are of the opinion that the discretion vested with the competent authority of the State Government is restricted to notifying or not notifying any area belonging to the State Government as being available for grant. However, after such exercise of limited discretion in favour of making available any area for grant, the only course open for the State Government for granting the land for quarrying lease is by notification directing grant by tender-cum-auction in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV-A, in view of the word "shall" before the phrase, "be granted by tender- cum-auction" in Rule 8-B. The Court cannot countenance the argument that the Government has any discretion in the matter of granting lease for quarrying any specified or non-specified minor mineral from any area belonging to the State Government without notifying such area under Rule 8-B and without adopting the method of tender-cum- auction for granting lease for such area. It is only in cases covered by the provisions of Rule 8-A that the procedure prescribed in that Rule could be followed, without reference to and adoption of the procedure envisaged in Rule 8-B of the Rules. 11. In the facts of the present case, admittedly the respondents have directly come out with the impugned notifications which do not even refer to the provisions of Rule 8-B and no legal provision for straight away according sanction for granting gomal land for quarry of multi-coloured granite could be cited for the respondent. Therefore, there is no alternative, but to hold and declare that the impugned notifications are illegal and in violation of the express provisions of the Rules. 12. Therefore, the petition is allowed and the impugned notifications at Annexures-H, J and K are quashed only on account of the illegality discussed hereinabove and no other issue sought to be raised in the petition or traversed by the respondents are gone into. The interim application for vacating interim relief, I.A. No. IV of 2013 does not survive and it is disposed accordingly.