1. Prosecution for contravening Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 — Challenge to validity of regulations based on alleged non-compliance with mandatory consultation requirements under Section 59(3), Mines Act, 1952. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 209
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K SUBBA RAO, K.N. WANCHOO AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
Kali Pada Chowdhury and others, Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Banwari Lal Agarwala, Jharia, District Dhanbad, Intervener.
Criminal Writ Petn. No 51 of 1962.
Advocates appeared
Mr. B. Sen. Senior Advocate, (Mr. K. L. Hathi, Advocate with him), for Petitioner; Mr. C. K Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India (M/s. B.R.L. Iyengar and R. H. Dhebar Advocate, with him), for Respondents; Mr. S. Chowdhury, Senior Advocate, (M/s S. C. Banerjee, and P.K Chatterjee Advocate, with him), for Intervener.
Advocates:
B.R.L.Iyengar, B.SEN, C.K.DAFTARY, K.L.Hathi, P.K.CHATTERJI, R.H.Dhebar, S.C.BANERJEE, S.Chaudhary
B.R.L.Iyengar, B.SEN, C.K.DAFTARY, K.L.Hathi, P.K.CHATTERJI, R.H.Dhebar, S.C.BANERJEE, S.Chaudhary
The constitution of Mining Boards under Section 12 of the Mines Act, 1952, is directory, not mandatory. While Section 59(3) mandates consultation with existing Boards, the failure to constitute such Boards does not invalidate regulations, as the power to create them is discretionary.
Headnote:(A) Mines Act, 1952 - Sections 12, 57, 59, and 61 - Constitution of India - Article 20(1) - Validity of regulations - Constitution of Mining Boards - Whether the power to constitute Mining Boards is mandatory or directory - Whether failure to consult a non-existent Board invalidates regulations - Use of the word "may" in Section 12(1) indicates discretion of the Central Government - Section 59(3) is mandatory only to the extent that existing Boards must be consulted before publishing draft regulations - If no Board is constituted, the absence of consultation does not render the regulations inoperative (Paras 11, 12, 13, 16).
(B) Statutory Interpretation - Meaning of "may" - Whether "may" means "shall" depends on the context - If the working of the Act can proceed without the appointment of a specific authority, the provision is directory (Paras 13, 14).
(C) Consultation Process - Reasonable opportunity to report - Communication of opinions by individual members of a Board satisfies the requirement of consultation under Section 59(3) (Para 17).
Facts of the case:
Petitioners were prosecuted for contravening regulations regarding the extension of mine workings. They challenged the validity of the regulations on the ground that the Central Government failed to constitute Mining Boards as required by the Act and consequently failed to consult them before framing the regulations, thereby violating constitutional protections against void laws.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the power to constitute Mining Boards is discretionary. While consultation with an existing Board is mandatory, the government is not obligated to create a Board specifically for the purpose of consultation. The regulations were held to be validly framed.
Issues: Whether Section 12 of the Act imposes a mandatory obligation on the Central Government to constitute Mining Boards and whether the failure to consult such Boards, when they do not exist, invalidates regulations made under Section 57.
Ratio Decidendi: The word "may" in Section 12(1) confers discretion, making the constitution of Boards directory. Section 59(3) is mandatory only if a Board is in existence. Since the Act can function without these Boards and other provisions contemplate their absence, the government is not required to constitute them to validate regulations.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- constitutional law
- crime and sentencing
Table of Contents
2. Whether Section 12 and Section 59(3) of the Mines Act, 1952 are mandatory — Whether failure to constitute all Mining Boards invalidates the regulations. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 11 , 16 )
3. Section 12(1) is directory, granting discretion to constitute Boards, whereas Section 59(3) is mandatory only regarding the consultation of existing Boards. (Para 7 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. Mandatory consultation under Section 59(3) applies only to existing Mining Boards; the power to constitute such Boards under Section 12(1) is directory. (Para 13 , 16 )
5. Petition dismissed; regulations held valid as the existing Board was consulted. (Para 17 , 18 , 31 )
6. Is the power to constitute Mining Boards under Section 12(1) of the Mines Act, 1952 mandatory?
No, Section 12(1) is directory. The use of the word may and the discretion granted to the Central Government to constitute Boards for specific territories or classes of mines indicates that it is not an obligation. (Para 13 )
7. Is the requirement to consult Mining Boards under Section 59(3) mandatory?
Yes, Section 59(3) is mandatory, but only in the sense that if a Mining Board is in existence and concerned with the subject, it must be consulted before draft regulations are published. (Para 7 , 11 , 16 )
8. Does the failure to constitute a Mining Board invalidate regulations made under the Act?
No. Since the constitution of Boards under Section 12(1) is directory, the absence of a Board does not render the regulations invalid; consultation is only required if a Board exists. (Para 12 , 16 )
9. Does consultation with a Board via individual members satisfy the requirement of Section 59(3)?
Yes. The government discharges its obligation by providing a reasonable opportunity for the Board to report. How the Board chooses to communicate—whether collectively or through individual members—does not invalidate the regulations. (Para 17 )
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.: (For himself and Sinha, C.J.I. and Wanchoo and Shah, JJ.) The four petitioners who are in charge of the working of the mine owned by the colliery known as Salanpur "A" Seam Colliery in the District of Burdwan, are being prosecuted for the alleged contravention of the provisions of Regulation 127(3) of the COAL MINES REGULATIONS , 1957, framed under the Mines Act, 1952 (32 of 1952) (hereinafter called the Act.) By their petition filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners pray that an order or writ in the nature of prohibition should be issued quashing the said criminal proceedings on the ground that the said proceedings contravene Art. 20(1) of the Constitution and as such, are void. To this petition have been impleaded as opponents I to 4 the Union of India, the Chief Inspector of Mines, Dhanbad (W.B.), the Regional Inspector of Mines, Sitarampur and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Asansol, respectively. The prosecution of the petitioners has commenced at the instance of opponents 2 and 3 and the case against them is being tried by opponent No. 4. The petitioners contention is that Regulation No. 127 (3) whose alleged contravention has given rise to the present proceedings against them is invalid, ultra vires and inoperative and so the prosecution of the petitioners contravenes Art. 20(1) of the Constitution. It is on this basis that they want the said proceedings to be quashed and ask for an order restraining opponents 2 and 3 from proceeding with the cave and opponent Now from trying it. The case in question is C. 783 of 1961 pending in the court of opponent No.4.
2. Regulation 127 (3) is a part of the COAL MINES REGULATIONS framed by opponent No. 1 in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by S.57 of the Act, the same having been previously published as required by sub-sec. (1) of S. 59 of the said Act. Regulation 127(3) provides that no working which has approached within a distance of 60 metres of any disused or abandoned workings (not being workings which have been examined and found to be free from accumulation of water or other liquid matter), whether in the same mine or in an adjoining mine, shall be extended further except with the prior permission in writing of the Chief inspector and subject to such conditions as he may specify therein. There is a proviso and explanation attached to this provision, but it is unnecessary to refer to them The case against the petitioners is that they have contravened the provisions of Regulation 127(3) in that they extended the working of the mine further than the permitted limits without the prior permission in writing of opponent No. 2. The petitioner s case is that this Regulation is invalid and inoperative and so, its contravention cannot validly be made the basis of their prosecution having regard to the provisions of Art. 20 (1) of the Constitution.
3. According to the petitioners, opponent No. 1 is no doubt conferred with the power of making Regulation under S.57 of the Act, but S.59(3),as it stood at the relevant time, has imposed an obligation on opponent No. 1 that the draft of the said Regulations shall not be published unless the Mining Boards therein specified have had a reasonable opportunity of reporting to it as to the expediency of making the Regulations in question and as to the suitability of its provisions. The petitioners allege that at the relevant time, when the Regulations were made in 1957, no Mining Boards had been established under S. 12 of the Act. Three Boards had been established under S.10 of the Indian Mines Act of 192; but as a result of the subsequent amendments made in the provisions of S. 10 the composition of two of the said Boards became invalid with the result that two of them could not be treated as Boards validly constituted. These invalid Boards were the Madhya Pradesh Mining Board and the West Bengal Mining Board. A third Board existed at the relevant time and that is the Bihar Mining Board. This Boar
