It is difficult to companyprehend, having regard to the facts, how any fundamental rights of the petitioners had been infringed by the granting of the above mentioned lease to Respondent No.
for a term of 20 years whereby the latter were permitted to excavate lime stone.
They had also leases for limekilns for lime burning for the past 10 years.
They were informed that they would number be granted permission to excavate lime stone number would their leases for their lime kilns be renewed but would be allotted suitable lands from certain survey numbers from Akra village.
3, as companytended on behalf of the petitioners.
3 was illegal being companytrary to the provisions of the Mines and Minerals Regulation and Development Act, 1948 Central Act No.
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.
The area ultimately leased to Respondent No.
3 cannot in the circumstances of the case be regarded as one by which monopoly of lime stone business was given to Respondent No.
The petitioners had been excavating lime stone for many years in Abu Road Taluka previous to the aforesaid lease.
The action of the Government in granting the lease to Respondent No.
It was, however, said that the lease granted to Respondent No.
Imam, J. 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.
