Judgment

DAS GUPTA, J. : On February 20, 1958, there occurred in the Central Bhowra Colliery, in Dhanbad in Bihar an accident as a result of which 23 persons lost their lives. After an inquiry under S. 24 of the Mines Act, 1952, into the causes of and the circumstances attending the accident, and the publication of the report of the inquiry, a complaint was prepared by the Regional Inspector of Mines, Dhanbad, under the direction of the Chief Inspector of Mines Dhanbad, before the Sub Divisional Officer, Dhanbad, against the appellant for an offence under S. 74 of the Mines Act, 1952, for contravention of regulations 107 and 127 of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957. The Central Bhowra Colliery belongs and belonged at the relevant date to a private company, viz., M/s. Central Bhowra Colliery Co., Private Limited. The appellant is and was a shareholder and a director of this company. After the Sub-Divisional Officer took cognizance of the complaint and issued processes against him, the appellant made an application to the Patna High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution, for the issue of an appropriate writ for quashing the criminal proceedings. This application was summarily dismissed. It is against that order of dismissal that this appeal has been filed by special leave obtained from this Court.

2. The two main grounds on which the prayer for quashing the proceedings was based were: (1) that S. 76 of the Mines Act, 1952, in pursuance of which the appellant, who was not himself the owner of the colliery company, but only one of the directors and shareholders has been prosecuted, is void as it violates Art. 14 of the Constitution; (2) the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, are invalid having been framed in contravention of S. 59(3) of the Mines Act, 1952. These two contentions were also urged before us in appeal.

3. The first contention is based on an assumption that the word "any one in S. 76 means only "one of the directors, and only one of the shareholders . This question as regards the interpretation of the word "any one in S. 76 was raised in Cr. Appeals. Nos. 98 to 106/59, Chief Inspector of Mines, etc. v. Karam Chand Thapar, (AIR 1961 SC 838) and it has been decided there that the word "any one should be interpreted there as "every one . Thus under section 76 every one of the shareholders of a private company owning the mine, and every one of the directors of a public company owning the mine is liable to prosecution. No question of violation of Art. 14 therefore arises.

4. As regards the other contention that the regulations are invalid the appellant s argument is that the provisions of S. 12 and S. 59 of the Mines Act, 1952, are mandatory. Section 12 provides:-

"1. The Central Government may constitute for any part of the territories to which this Act extends, or for any group or class of mines, a Mining Board consisting of-

(a) a person in the service of the Government, not being the Chief Inspector or an Inspector, appointed by the Central Government to act as Chairman;

(b) the Chief Inspector or an Inspector appointed by the Central Government;

(c) a person, not being the Chief Inspector or an Inspector, appointed by the Central Government;

(d) two persons nominated by owners of mines or their representatives in such manner as may be prescribed;

(e) two persons to represent the interest of miners, who shall be nominated in accordance with provisions laid down in the section.

5. Section 59 empowers the Central Government to make regulations consistent with the Act for all or any of the purposes mentioned therein, while S. 58 empowers the Central Government to make rules consistent with the Act for all or any of the purposes mentioned therein. Section 59 after providing in its first sub-section that the power to make regulations and rules conferred by sections 57 and 58 in subject to the condition of the regulations and rules being made after previous publication provides in its third sub-section further conditions as r