JUDGMENT

After hearing Smt. Kitty Kumarmanglam, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri A. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, we are inclined to the view that the High Court was not right in its interpretation of the word and used at the end of paragraph (b) of sub-cl. (ii) of the proviso to Cl. (b) of sub-s. (1) of S. 3 of the Mines Act, 1952 as being conjunctive.

2. In the present case, admittedly the respondents are engaged in working an open cast mine. After an inspection, the Inspector of Mines found that the respondents were engaged in the open cast mine and the number of persons employed on any one day exceeded 50. That being so, the respondents fell within the mischief of the proviso to Cl. (b) of S. 3(1) of the Act and became subject to the provisions of the Act. The Inspector was therefore well within his powers to serve a notice under S. 22 read with S. 17 of the Act calling upon the respondents to appoint a qualified Manager for the mine. The High Court on an erroneous interpretation of the word and occurring at the end of paragraph (b) of sub-cl. (ii) of the proviso to Cl. (b) of sub-s. (1) of S. 3 of the Act held that the use of the word and made the thr