Case: Bhagwandas Gangasahai Vs. Union Of India &amp; Ors

1. These two petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution have been heard together as the question for decision is the same in both of them. It is claimed by the petitioners that their fundamental rights had been infringed by the leasing out of an area of land in Abu Road Taluka to Messrs Jeewan and Sons, Respondent No. 3 for a term of 20 years whereby the latter were permitted to excavatewas done without inviting any application or tender for the same or the holding of any auction and without notice to the public or to anymerchants or railway contractors. The petitioners had been excavatingfor many years in Abu Road Taluka previous to the aforesaid lease. They had also leases forfor lime burning for the past 10 years. They were informed that they would not be granted permission to excavatenor would their leases for theirbe renewed but would be allotted suitable lands from certain survey number from Akra village.

Reasoning: 3. It is difficult to comprehend, having regard to the facts, how any fundamental rights of the petitioners had been infringed by the granting of thelease to Respondent No. 3. The area ultimately leased to Respondent No. 3 contains no. portion which was previously in the lease of the petitioners. The Government as owners of the land with its minerals was prima facie entitled to lease it out to Respondent No. 3 and the petitioners have been unable to show under what authority of law they, had a right to have that area leased out to them instead of Respondent No. 3. The action of the Government in granting the lease to Respondent No. 3 cannot in the circumstances of the case be regarded as one by which monopoly ofbusiness was given to Respondent No. 3 as contended on behalf of the petitioners.As already observed we are unable to see what fundamental right of the petitioners had been infringed. Assuming the action of the Government in granting the lease was illegal, a petition for a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution is not maintainable unless there has been a violation of some fundamental right. An examination of the terms of the lease, however, would show that it does not come within the definition of "minor mineral" as given in the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949.The lease states that it is a mining lease concerningonly. The lease does not speak ofto be used for lime burning. The use ofcan be for other purposes than lime running and there is not justification on the materials on the record, for the suggestion made on behalf of the petitioners that theis only used for lime burning. Since there is nothing in the lease to show that it was with reference to a minor mineral, the Mineral Concession Rules, 1949 apply to it and the action of the Government in granting the lease cannot be said to because of action the petitioners may have by way of damages or otherwise for the alleged improper action of the Government the present petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution become infructuous so far as this aspect of the case isis difficult in these circumstances to come to any definite conclusion that the petitioners had a lease of theand that they were not licencees. In any event evenes if there was a lease it had come to an end after the 31st of July, 1955 and the petitioners have failed to show that they had any right to have it4 merely states that the merchant will give up possession of the land on the expiry of the lease or he will have to apply for renewal before the expiry of the lease. Nothing stated in this paragraph establishes that the petitioners had a right to have the lease renewed or that a guarantee had been given to the petitioners that the lease would be renewed.