Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and R.K.Choudhary JJ.
Lala Karam Chand Thapar
Versus
State Of Bihar
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 475 of 1956 ; 480 of 1956 ;
Decided On : MARCH 03, 1958
INDIAN MINES ACT, 1923 - REPEAL - SURVIVAL OF REGULATIONS FRAMED UNDER THE ACT - INDIAN COAL MINES REGULATIONS, 1926 - CONSTITUTIONALITY - ARTICLE 19 (1) (G) - DELEGATION OF POWER - EXCESSIVE OR UNGUIDED POWER - MANAGING AGENTS - WHETHER "OWNERS" WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2 (1) OF THE MINES ACT, 1952 - PROSECUTION OF DIRECTORS OF A PUBLIC COMPANY - SECTION 76 OF THE MINES ACT, 1952 - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
The Indian Coal Mines Regulations of 1926 were framed under Section 29 of the Indian Mines Act, 1923. The Mines Act of 1923 was repealed by the Mines Act of 1952, which did not contain any saving clause. The question arose whether the Regulations survived the repeal of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Regulations survived the repeal of the Act. The Court relied on Section 24 of the General Clauses Act, which provides that where an Act is repealed and re-enacted with or without modification, any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, form or bye-law made or issued under the repealed Act or Regulation shall, so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions re-enacted, continue in force, and be deemed to have been made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted, unless and until it is superseded by any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, form or bye-law, made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted.
Issues: 1. Whether the Indian Coal Mines Regulations of 1926 survived the repeal of the Indian Mines Act, 1923? 2. Whether Regulation 48 of the Indian Coal Mines Regulations, 1926 was unconstitutional as it violated the guarantee in Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution? 3. Whether the Managing Agents were "owners" within the meaning of Section 2 (1) of the Mines Act, 1952? 4. Whether more than one Director of a Public Company could be prosecuted under Section 76 of the Mines Act, 1952?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Regulations survived the repeal of the Act because Section 24 of the General Clauses Act provides that where an Act is repealed and re-enacted with or without modification, any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, form or bye-law made or issued under the repealed Act or Regulation shall, so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions re-enacted, continue in force, and be deemed to have been made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted, unless and until it is superseded by any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, form or bye-law, made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted. 2. The Court held that Regulation 48 was not unconstitutional as it did not violate the guarantee in Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. The Court held that the Regulation provided for a public inquiry, that the person whose conduct was under inquiry was entitled to be heard, and that the Central Government was required to consider the report of the Court of Inquiry and the recommendations made by that Court before taking action. 3. The Court held that the Managing Agents were not "owners" within the meaning of Section 2 (1) of the Mines Act, 1952, because they were not the immediate proprietors, lessees or occupiers of the mine. 4. The Court held that only one Director of a Public Company could be prosecuted under Section 76 of the Mines Act, 1952, because the phrase used in Section 76 is "any one of the directors" and not "everyone of the Directors."
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petitions in Miscellaneous Judicial Cases Nos. 180, 181, 475, 476, 479 and 480 of 1957 and issued writs in the nature of mandamus, prohibition and certiorari, as the case may be. The Court dismissed the petitions in Miscellaneous Judicial Cases Nos. 477 and 478 of 1956.
V.Ramaswami, J.
1. In these applications, under Article 226 of the Constitution, a common question of law arises for deter-mination, namely, whether the Indian Coal Mines Regulations of 1928, framed under, Sec.29 of the Indian Mines Act (Act IV of 1923). survive after repeal of that Act under Section 88 of the Mines Act (Act XXXV of 1952).
2. In the Purulia Sadar Sub-division of Manbhum district there is a colliery known as Amlabad Colliery. The colliery was started in the year 1917 by the Eastern Coal Company Lirnitsd, under the managing agency of Mackinnon Mackenzie and Company. In January 1955 the ownership of the colliery passed into the hands of Bhowra--Kankanee Collieries Limited, which is a public limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. On the 5th of February 1955, there was a serious accident in the Amiabad Colliery, as a result of which 52 persons were killed and one person was injured. Thereafter the Government of India appointed Mr. Justice Jamuar, a Judge of the Patna High Court, to hold an inquiry under Sec.24 of the Mines Act of 1952 (Act XXXV of 1952), by a notification No. S. R. 338, dated the 9th February, 1955. By the same notification two persons were appointed to act as assessors in holding the inquiry, namely, Sri A. P. Sinha M- P. arid Sri L. M. L. Shome, Chief Mining Etiigneer and Secretary oE the Coal Board. Later on Sri A. P. Sinha, M. P. submitted his resignation, and the Government of India appointed in his place Sri S N. Das, M. P., by a notification dated the 1st of March, 1955. After the completion of the inquiry, the Court of inquiry submitted a report dated the 26th of September, 1955, and in pursuance of Sec.27 of the Mines Act, 1952, the Central Government published the report by notification no. S. R. O. 3688, dated the 7th December 1955, The finding of the Court of inquiry was that the accident was due to the negligence of the supervisory staff. On the 3rd of March, 1956, the Central Government acted under Regulation 48 ot the Indian Coal Mines Regulations of 1926 and directed that an inquiry should be made into the conduct of the Agent, Sri Jagat Ram Sharma, and the conduct of the Manager, Sri Kumud Ranjan Dutt. Later on opposite party no. 1 in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 180 of 1957, the Commissioner of Chota Nagpur Division, informed the Manager and the Agent that he was anpointed by the Central Government to hold an inquiry into their conduct under Regulation 48 of the Indian Coal Mines Regulations, 1926. In Miscellaneous Judicial Cases Nos. 180 and 181 of 1957 the Manager and the Agent, Sri Kumud Rajan Dutt and Sri Jagat Ram Sharma, respectively, have applied for grant of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution, commanding opposite party No. 1, Commissioner of Chota Nagpur Division, not to hold the inquiry under Regulation 48 of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1926 .
3. On the 23rd of May, 1956, a complaint was filed by the Regional Inspector of Mines at the instance of the Chief Inspector of Mines against Lala Karam Chand Thapar, Director of Bhowra-Kankanee Collieries Limited, Sri V. Mehta Director of Karam Chand Thapar & Brothers (Private) Limited, the Manager, Sri Kumud Ranjan Dutt, and the Agent, Sri Jagat Ram Sharma, for violation of Regulations 121, 122 (1), 122 (2), 70 (1) 70 (2), 70 (3) and other Regulations ot the Indian Coal Mines Regulations, 1926. On the same date the sub-divisional Magistrate of Purulia took cognizance of the case and summoned Lala Karam Chand Thaper, Sri Jagat Ram Sharma, Sri Kumud Ranjan Dutt and others, and the criminal case was numbered as C-163 of 1956.
4. On the 23rd of May, 1956, another complaint was filed by the Regional Inspector of Mines at the instance of the Chief Inspector of Mines against Seth H. P. Poddar, Director of Bhowra Kankanee Collieries Limited, the Manager, Sri Kumud Ranjan Dutt, the Agent, Sri Jagat Ram Sharma, and Sri V. Mehta, Director of Karani Chand Thapar & Brothers (Private) Limited, the Mana
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
