Back
High Court Of Calcutta
S. B. SINHA
COAL MINES OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
C. C. 9989 Of 1994
Decided On : 03/21/1995
Writ petition challenging the notification issued by the Central Government appointing a commission of inquiry to investigate the causes and circumstances of an accident in a coal mine and the appointment of certain individuals as assessors in the commission. The petitioners, officers of the coal mine, argued that the commission's inquiry would compel them to testify against themselves, violating their right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. They also raised concerns about the impartiality of one of the assessors, who was a trade union leader. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Mines Act, 1952, and the principles of natural justice and bias in administrative law.
Fact of the Case:
A fatal accident occurred in a coal mine, resulting in the death of 55 individuals. The Central Government issued a notification appointing a commission of inquiry to investigate the causes and circumstances of the accident and to submit a report within three months. The commission was empowered to summon witnesses and compel the production of documents. One of the assessors appointed to the commission was a trade union leader whose union was opposed to the petitioners' union.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the commission of inquiry was not a civil or criminal proceeding, and therefore, the petitioners' right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India was not violated. The court also found that the appointment of the trade union leader as an assessor did not create a real likelihood of bias, as the commission was not a judicial or quasi-judicial body and the assessor's role was limited to assisting the commission in its fact-finding inquiry.
Issues: 1. Whether the commission of inquiry's investigation violated the petitioners' right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. 2. Whether the appointment of the trade union leader as an assessor created a real likelihood of bias.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The commission of inquiry was not a civil or criminal proceeding, and therefore, the petitioners' right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India was not violated. The commission was a fact-finding body, and its inquiry was not intended to determine the guilt or innocence of any individual. 2. The appointment of the trade union leader as an assessor did not create a real likelihood of bias. The commission was not a judicial or quasi-judicial body, and the assessor's role was limited to assisting the commission in its fact-finding inquiry. The court noted that the assessor was not personally or pecuniarily interested in the outcome of the inquiry, and that his institutional bias, as a trade union leader, was not sufficient to create a real likelihood of bias.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the notification appointing the commission of inquiry and the appointment of the assessors were valid.
( 1 ) THE petitioner in this application have, inter alia, questioned a notification dated 4-2-1994 issued by the Central Government in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Section 24 (1) of the Mines Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act ).
( 2 ) THE fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. The petitioner No. 1 is an Association of Officers of Coal Industries and the petitioner No. 2 is the General Secretary of the petitioner No. 1. The other petitioners are Officers of the New Kenda Colliery belonging to Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. An accident occurred in the said New Kenda Colliery as a result whereof 55 lives were lost on 25-1-1994. The impugned notification reads thus :-"whereas an accident took place on 25th January, 1994 at New Kenda Colliery of Eastern Coal Fields, situate at Burdwan District in the State of West Bengal as result of which there has been loss of lives and properties. And whereas it is the opinion of the Central Government that there must be formal enquiry regarding the causes of the accident and the circumstances relating thereto. Hence, the Central Govt. in exercise of the provision laid down under sub-section (i) of Section 24 of the Mines Act, 1952 do hereby appoint on this day the Hon'ble Shamsuddin Ahmed, Ex-Judge of this Court, resident of 2a, Shamsul Huda Rd. , Cal.-700017 to conduct such enquiry and submit a Report within three months. The Central Govt. also appoint the following persons as the assessors to the Enquiry Proceedings :1. Prof. A. K. Ghosh, Director, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad 926004. 2. Shri B. N. Tewary, General Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Sabha (AITUC), G. T. Rd. , Asansol, Dist. Burdwan, W. B. Sd/- R. T. Pandey Deputy Secretary, Govt. of India. "
( 3 ) ON 27-5-1994 a publication was made in the Statesman by the said Commission of Enquiry calling upon any person who has knowledge of the said accident or interested in any manner resulting from the said accident to file written-statement.
( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners they came to learn about the constitution of enquiry from the aforementioned notice published in the Statesman.
( 5 ) ON 26-7-94 the petitioner No. 1 Association submitted a written statement. On 27-7-94, the instant writ petition was filed. It is also admitted that one Sri Soma Majhi who is said to be the Secretary of the Colliery Mazdoor Sabha, a Trade Union affiliated to CITU lodged a First Information Report as against the petitioners Nos. 3 to 5 purported to be under Section 304 read with Section 120b of the Indian Penal Code. In that case, the petitioners Nos. 3 to 5 have obtained orders of anticipatory bail from this Court.
( 6 ) MR. Saktinath Mukherjee, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner raised two contentions in support of this application.
( 7 ) FIRSTLY it was submitted that keeping in view the fact that the petitioners Nos. 3 to 5 are accused in a criminal proceedings which arose out of a F. I. R. lodged by the aforementioned Sri Soma Majhi, Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India would come into play and thus the said petitioners cannot be compelled to give testimonies against themselves before the Commission of Enquiry.
( 8 ) THE learned Counsel drew my attention to the fact that the Commission of Enquiry in terms of sub-section (2) of Sec. 24 of the said Act is conferred with powers of a Civil Court in the matter securing the attendance of any witness which in turn confers a right upon it to issue summons upon the petitioners and upon failure of the witnesses so summoned to appear pursuant thereto it may issue proclamation and warrant of arrest in terms of Order 16, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
( 9 ) THE learned Counsel in support of the aforementioned contentions has relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court of India in M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, reported in AIR 1954 SCR 1077 and State of Bombay v. Kathi Kulu Ozhad, reported in AIR 1961 SC 1808 :
AI
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
