JUDGMENT : The petitioner holds a registered land in Thrissur District. The land on the eastern side of the said land is a Government Puramboke. The petitioner intends to obtain a quarrying permit for extracting granite stones under the Kerala Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 2015 (the Rules) from her land as also from the adjoining Government Puramboke. No-objection Certificate from the District Collector is one of the documents to be produced for obtaining quarrying permit under the Rules. The petitioner, therefore, applied to the District Collector for No-objection Certificate. Ext.P2 is the application preferred by the petitioner in this connection. On a reference from the District Collector, the Tahsildar and the Village Officer concerned have forwarded their remarks to the District Collector. In the meanwhile, the Government decided to prescribe guidelines in the matter of considering the requests for grant of No-objection Certificate by the District Collectors for the purpose of obtaining quarrying permits, and directed the District Collectors to refrain from granting No-objection Certificates for the said purpose until the guidelines are prescribed. In the light of the said direction of the Government, the petitioner has been given Ext.P7 communication by the District Collector informing her that her application for grant of No-objection Certificate would be considered only in accordance with the guidelines of the Government, once it is framed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she being an Indian National, she has a right to obtain quarrying permit in respect of Government lands as well, in terms of Rule 3 of the Rules and therefore, the application preferred by the petitioner for grant of No-objection Certificate cannot be kept pending indefinitely by the District Collector. It is also the case of the petitioner that the application of the petitioner being one preferred long prior to the decision of the Government to prescribe guidelines, the same is liable to be considered by the District Collector following the existing procedure. It is the further case of the petitioner that No-objection Certificates are presently issued based on recommendations of the Tahsildars and Village Officers concerned and the application of the petitioner is also liable to be considered by the District Collector based on the recommendation of the Tahsildar and Village Officer. The petitioner, therefore, seeks direction to the District Collector to consider the application submitted by her, based on the recommendations of the Tahsildar and the Village Officer concerned. The petitioner, therefore, seeks direction to the District Collector to consider the application submitted by her, based on the recommendations of the Tahsildar and the Village Officer concerned. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. 4. The learned Government pleader has reiterated the stand of the District Collector as informed to the petitioner in terms of Ext.P7 communication. 5. Rule 3 of the Rules relied on by the petitioner to assert that she has a right to obtain quarrying permit reads thus: “3. Grant of quarrying permit.—(1) On application made to it the competent authority under these rules may grant a quarrying permit to any Indian National to extract any minor mineral, other than the minerals specified in item numbers 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of Schedule I, from any specified land within the limits of its jurisdiction and authority as notified by the Government in the Official Gazette from time to time on payment of royalty as the competent authority may fix on the basis of the rates specified in schedule I or IV, as the case may be and also on payment of such surface rent and cess as may be assessable on the lands. (2) The competent authority may grant a permit for a lower quantity than applied for or refuse to grant such permit for reasons to be recorded in writing. (3) The area under a quarrying permit shall be a contiguous unit and shall not exceed one hectare. (4) The competent authority under these rules shall send a copy of the quarrying permit granted by it to the District Collector and the Secretary of the Local Self Government Institution concerned.” It is unnecessary to consider the question as to whether the petitioner has any right to obtain quarrying permit in terms of Rule 3 of the Rules, for the grievance voiced by the petitioner in the writ petition does not relate to her right to claim quarrying permit under the Rules. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that Rule 4(2)(f) of the Rules insists production of No-objection Certificate of the District Collector for obtaining quarrying permit in respect of Government lands. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that Rule 4(2)(f) of the Rules insists production of No-objection Certificate of the District Collector for obtaining quarrying permit in respect of Government lands. As noted, the grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the decision of the District Collector to withhold consideration of the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of No-objection Certificate, until guidelines are framed by the State Government in this regard. The short question, therefore, is as to whether the District Collector was justified in taking the aforesaid stand. 6. It may be noted that since the dispute in this case pertains to the natural resources of the State, it is worth referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 1 , before proceeding to consider the question formulated for decision. Paragraphs 74, 75 and 85 of the said judgment read thus: 74. At the outset, we consider it proper to observe that even though there is no universally accepted definition of natural resources, they are generally understood as elements having intrinsic utility to mankind. They may be renewable or non-renewable. They are thought of as the individual elements of the natural environment that provide economic and social services to human society and are considered valuable in their relatively unmodified, natural form. A natural resource’s value rests in the amount of the material available and the demand for it. The latter is determined by its usefulness to production. Natural resources belong to the people but the State legally owns them on behalf of its people and from that point of view natural resources are considered as national assets, more so because the State benefits immensely from their value. 75. The State is empowered to distribute natural resources. However, as they constitute public property/national asset, while distributing natural resources the State is bound to act in consonance with the principles of equality and public trust and ensure that no action is taken which may be detrimental to public interest. Like any other State action, constitutionalism must be reflected at every stage of the distribution of natural resources. However, as they constitute public property/national asset, while distributing natural resources the State is bound to act in consonance with the principles of equality and public trust and ensure that no action is taken which may be detrimental to public interest. Like any other State action, constitutionalism must be reflected at every stage of the distribution of natural resources. In Article 39(b) of the Constitution it has been provided that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community should be so distributed so as to best subserve the common good, but no comprehensive legislation has been enacted to generally define natural resources and a framework for their protection. Of course, environment laws enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures deal with specific natural resources i.e. forest, air, water, coastal zones, etc. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 85. As natural resources are public goods, the doctrine of equality, which emerges from the concepts of justice and fairness, must guide the State in determining the actual mechanism for distribution of natural resources. In this regard, the doctrine of equality has two aspects: first, it regulates the rights and obligations of the State vis-à-vis its people and demands that the people be granted equitable access to natural resources and/or its products and that they are adequately compensated for the transfer of the resource to the private domain; and second, it regulates the rights and obligations of the State vis-à-vis private parties seeking to acquire/use the resource and demands that the procedure adopted for distribution is just, non-arbitrary and transparent and that it does not discriminate between similarly placed private parties. (Underline supplied) Reverting to the question, the Rules do not confer any right on any person to claim No-objection Certificate from the District Collector for extracting minerals from Government lands. It also does not provide the procedure for grant of No-objection Certificate by the District Collector for the said purpose. It only provides the procedure for grant of quarrying permit. It can, therefore, be seen that the grant of No-objection Certificate for the purpose of obtaining quarrying permit for extracting minerals from Government lands has been reserved by the Government with the District Collectors as a privilege, in exercise of their discretionary power. 7. It only provides the procedure for grant of quarrying permit. It can, therefore, be seen that the grant of No-objection Certificate for the purpose of obtaining quarrying permit for extracting minerals from Government lands has been reserved by the Government with the District Collectors as a privilege, in exercise of their discretionary power. 7. W. Hohfeld, the renowned American jurist in his book “Fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning” has illustrated jural relations thus: Jural right privilege power immunity Correlatives duty no-right liability disability Going by the aforesaid principle, since the grant of No-objection Certificate is reserved by the Government as a privilege, no one can claim any corresponding right for grant of that privilege. If no one can claim any corresponding right for grant of that privilege, it cannot be said that the District Collectors are duty bound to consider applications for grant of that privilege as and when requested for by persons aspiring the same. It must be mentioned in this context that the petitioner has no case that No-objection Certificate has been issued by the District Collector to any other similarly situated persons or that inaction on the part of the District Collector in considering the request made by the petitioner is due to extraneous reasons. Under the Constitution, in a case of this nature, a writ of mandamus can be issued only when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to the performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought [See State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra, (1996) 9 SCC 309 ]. If the District Collectors are not duty bound to consider applications for grant of the privilege sought by the petitioner, this Court would not issue a writ of mandamus for the said purpose. Even otherwise, it is now trite that no mandamus would lie where the duty sought to be enforced is of a discretionary nature [See Chingleput Bottlers v. Majestic Bottling Company, (1984) 3 SCC 258 ]. 8. That apart, as noted, the stand taken by the District Collector in Ext.P7 communication is only that the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of No-objection Certificate will be considered as and when guidelines are framed by the Government for consideration of applications for the said purpose by the District Collectors. 8. That apart, as noted, the stand taken by the District Collector in Ext.P7 communication is only that the application submitted by the petitioner for grant of No-objection Certificate will be considered as and when guidelines are framed by the Government for consideration of applications for the said purpose by the District Collectors. There cannot be any doubt that in the absence of any guidelines, exercise of discretionary power by public authorities in a matter like this would be unpredictable and would lead to arbitrariness. Absence of arbitrary power is the first essential of the Rule of Law upon which our constitutional system is based and in a system governed by Rule of Law, discretion, when conferred upon executive authorities, must be confined within clearly defined limits [See S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1967 SC 1427 ]. The decision of the District Collector to withhold the application preferred by the petitioner for grant of No-objection Certificate until guidelines are formulated by the Government in this regard, in the circumstances, cannot be said to be illegal in any manner. The writ petition, in the circumstances, is devoid of merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.